Whats Wrong with Disney?

[Suvadoo]

Seamlessly. Look at the old infrastucture that they were able to retire and not have to maintain through the introduction of these.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but what old infrastructure were they able to retire?

 

[DisUniversal]

Seamlessly. Look at the old infrastucture that they were able to retire and not have to maintain through the introduction of these.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but what old infrastructure were they able to retire?

I guess the old paper ticket scanning machines and the paper fast pass dispensers?

As for the monorail/cement crumbling theory....it that's true, it shows an incredible lack of foresight and planning on Disney's part and perhaps means they shouldn't have even built a 4th gate if they couldn't handle maintenance and growth at the same time.

 

[JimmyV]

As for the monorail/cement crumbling theory....it that's true, it shows an incredible lack of foresight and planning on Disney's part and perhaps means they shouldn't have even built a 4th gate if they couldn't handle maintenance and growth at the same time.

It's hard to strike the balance. Everyone wants to build and grow. But at some point you look back and realize that 40 year old buildings have cracks. And monorails need new parts. And the companies that make those parts are out of business. Some things are predictable and some are not. But it should be failry clear that the past three years and likely the next few will see more spending on infrastructure and backstage needs than on onstage wants. The former never make headlines, but WDW will spend more on new mattresses, carpets, paint, electrical wiring, monorail tracks, ride engines, etc. on existing hotels, restaurants and attractions than it will on Pandora.

 

[PlutoMars]

The Disney Demographic is a mom and dad with a 5 year old boy and a 3 year old girl. (Of course, all variations of families count. This is just an example). They go to WDW and visit princesses, ride Dumbo, Small World, Pirates, own 20+ DVDs of Disney movies and have watched each multiple times. They fall in love with WDW and come back again and again, each time the kids are a bit older and do a bit more than they did before. As Disney churns out more movies, there will be more characters to meet, more attractions to explore. This family does not own the boxed set of SW movies. The kids, now ages 12 and 10, have probably not seen the 1977 SW movie. But the 12 year old has probably read a Harry Potter book. And a Percy Jackson book. And a Kingdom Keepers book. And a Maze Runner book. And a Hunger Games book. And many other books that are serialized for young readers. And the 10 year old will probably begin to read these books as well if she hasn't started already.

The point is, going forward, the Disney demographic will come upon Disney stuff organically, and children's literature through peers, school, or relatives. They likely won't come across SW stuff unless there is more of a catalyst. I have children, nieces and nephews that range in age from 30 to 1. All of them own (or their families own) Disney DVDs. The ones over the age of 12 have all read children series books like Hunger Games, Percy Jackson, Harry Potter, Kingdom Keepers, etc. And not a one of them knows or cares what Star Wars is. I don't doubt that I could have turned on my kid to SW if I pushed it harder. But we watched the first movie (or 4th, if you count funny) when it was on TV and she could not have been less interested. (But the same was true of "Twilight". But she really enjoyed "2001 A Space Odessey" and the entire "Twin Peaks" series. So go figure.) None of her friends are into SW. At all. I mean, it isn't even on the radar screen in her High School. Maybe it's a gender thing, but that cannot be discounted when 51% of the population is female. The point is, SW just doesn't seem to meld itself into the culture of young adults the way other youth literature does. Take a look at #s 1-100 here and count how many are SW books. Of course, this isn't all kids everywhere. No such generalizations are possible. But SW is not the "phenomenon" with the 5-18 crowd that many make it out to be. And as time marches forward it will be even less so.

And yet, what is one of the priorities of DHS? Jedi Training.

And what ages are watching the animated SW series & movies today?

What ages are playing the Lego Star Wars and other Star Wars themed video games today?

SW is ingrained into popular culture today with adults introducing their children to the SW universe. This popularity will only increase when the new SW movies are released. Geek culture is on the rise in popular culture today. SW references are still all over TV today. Big Bang Theory has references all over the place. The various conventions (sci-fi, comic book, cosplay, tech, etc) across the nation attract a wide variety of ages. The internet age has caused an increase in this culture and will continue to do so.

My experience in my family and circle of friends is different than yours. My step brother introduced his boys to SW at a young age and they are wild over all things SW. Same story with my friends who introduced their children. It is not some static niche demographic that loves SW.

AND the same thing will happen with HP. People will pass their love for HP to future generations.

SW popularity is not going to fall off the map anytime in the foreseeable future.

 

[JimmyV]

And yet, what is one of the priorities of DHS? Jedi Training.

Limited supply = artificial demand. How many kids do that each day? About the same number of people who board TSMM in 10 minutes. Pick any attraction at WDW. If only 100 people could ride it each day, the demand would be there too.

My step brother introduced his boys to SW at a young age and they are wild over all things SW.

How about his girls?

 

[btk2333]

Never said I wasn't a fan. I've seen every SW movie. I've seen two and a half HP movies. (Fell asleep during the third and never bothered to pick it up from there.)

Sad to hear it- the Harry Potter books are infinitely better than the movies FWIW

The Disney Demographic is a mom and dad with a 5 year old boy and a 3 year old girl. (Of course, all variations of families count. This is just an example). They go to WDW and visit princesses, ride Dumbo, Small World, Pirates, own 20+ DVDs of Disney movies and have watched each multiple times. They fall in love with WDW and come back again and again, each time the kids are a bit older and do a bit more than they did before. As Disney churns out more movies, there will be more characters to meet, more attractions to explore. This family does not own the boxed set of SW movies. The kids, now ages 12 and 10, have probably not seen the 1977 SW movie. But the 12 year old has probably read a Harry Potter book. And a Percy Jackson book. And a Kingdom Keepers book. And a Maze Runner book. And a Hunger Games book. And many other books that are serialized for young readers. And the 10 year old will probably begin to read these books as well if she hasn't started already.

I think your definition of the Disney demographic is very skewed. There are very few families that fit into your description. My kids are 3 months old so I can hardly give personal experiences with my kids, I can only report as regards to my cousins and the kids I see day to day in my line of work. They fall in the range of 5-14 and can all relate to Star Wars references. My cousins know very little about Disney because my uncle is not a fan; however, they can recite the Star Wars movies line by line. They will be a new demographic that Disney will reach through the Star Wars universe. While they can also relate to the other things you mentioned its just that there is much more competition nowadays than there was in the past. Additionally, the main portion of the original expanded universe was not geared towards kids- they were geared towards my generation- I have 50+ Star Wars books that I"ve accumulated. With the Disney Star Wars reboot- I would anticipate some newer material to be geared towards the younger audience. Kind of like the LEGO Star Wars cartoon and the Clone Wars cartoon- which believe it or not, kids do watch, not just old men in their parents' basements.

Additionally, even if you are correct about the target Disney demographic, why wouldn't Disney want to expand this demographic? Some families can't afford to go when their kids are 3 and 5 and may not be able to go until their kids are 10 or 12. By that time, they may have started to outgrow the princess and pirates stage. The son may push towards going to Universal (I know I did when I was 12-16, I call these my "lost Disney years" as I had little interest in going to WDW, I only wanted the roller coasters and Jurassic Park at Islands of Adventure). Star Wars has a larger appeal with 10 year old boys than you give it credit for. If Disney only appeals to people coming for their first trip when their kids are 3 and 5, then they are going to continue to lose business to Universal. Disney needs lands that appeal to all ages and boys in particular.

Personally, I love going to Disney as an adult without kids. We eat and drink around the world, do Run Disney events, go to JellyRolls, all in all spend a lot of money. Our friends that we travel to WDW with are dying to see a Star Wars -land, why would Disney want to turn away our high margin demographic as well?

The point is, going forward, the Disney demographic will come upon Disney stuff organically, and children's literature through peers, school, or relatives. They likely won't come across SW stuff unless there is more of a catalyst. I have children, nieces and nephews that range in age from 30 to 1. All of them own (or their families own) Disney DVDs. The ones over the age of 12 have all read children series books like Hunger Games, Percy Jackson, Harry Potter, Kingdom Keepers, etc. And not a one of them knows or cares what Star Wars is. I don't doubt that I could have turned on my kid to SW if I pushed it harder. But we watched the first movie (or 4th, if you count funny) when it was on TV and she could not have been less interested. (But the same was true of "Twilight". But she really enjoyed "2001 A Space Odessey" and the entire "Twin Peaks" series. So go figure.) None of her friends are into SW. At all. I mean, it isn't even on the radar screen in her High School. Maybe it's a gender thing, but that cannot be discounted when 51% of the population is female. The point is, SW just doesn't seem to meld itself into the culture of young adults the way other youth literature does.

I would say it is partially gender related. Disney already has the market cornered for the 51% female population, the demographic they lose out on are the families that have 2-3 teenage boys, princess and Fantasylands do not appeal to them.

Also you say that kids now come across Disney products organically, Star Wars is now a Disney product, expect Disney to market it as their own IP, if they can get kids to get into Nemo, then they can broaden the appeal of a decades old franchise as well.

Take a look at #s 1-100 here and count how many are SW books. Of course, this isn't all kids everywhere. No such generalizations are possible. But SW is not the "phenomenon" with the 5-18 crowd that many make it out to be. And as time marches forward it will be even less so.

I addressed this earlier- the original Expanded Universe was not geared towards kids at all. I would anticipate Disney, especially with their "target demographic" of which you speak so often will be interested in marketing Star Wars to all ages. As you recognize, Disney is good at marketing their products to girls and kids under 10. With Disney marketing, I don't understand why you would think Star Wars will be less of a phenomenon among kids 5-18 than it is now. Especially since...

The new SW movies are slated for release in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Nothing makes something more relevant than releasing new movies into its repertoire.

A Star Wars land could not cut its ribbon in 2018 if it broke ground today.

I say you're wrong, but we will see

Yes, that is what I am calling "all in". A New Fantasyland style committment in terms of space and money.

Well then my friend I'm afraid to say that Disney is likely going all in on Star Wars. They didn't spend $4.05 billion to keep Star Wars out of their parks

 

[flicx]

It's hard to strike the balance. Everyone wants to build and grow. But at some point you look back and realize that 40 year old buildings have cracks. And monorails need new parts. And the companies that make those parts are out of business. Some things are predictable and some are not. But it should be failry clear that the past three years and likely the next few will see more spending on infrastructure and backstage needs than on onstage wants. The former never make headlines, but WDW will spend more on new mattresses, carpets, paint, electrical wiring, monorail tracks, ride engines, etc. on existing hotels, restaurants and attractions than it will on Pandora.

Sorry not buying this one. Disney has spent countless dollars expanding DVC everywhere. If infrastructure was such a high priority I don't think this would have happened. Unfortunately Disney is setting on there hands with attractions. In my opinion they are just doing enough to get by , and trying to reap mega profits. Universal on the other hand is building attractions at a super pace. In the end I think they will grab a bigger market share with this strategy. After all this is the same strategy Disney had in the 90's and early 2000's and it worked well!

 

[btk2333]

Limited supply = artificial demand. How many kids do that each day? About the same number of people who board TSMM in 10 minutes. Pick any attraction at WDW. If only 100 people could ride it each day, the demand would be there too.

How about his girls?

Disney has no problem reaching young girls- this is not the priority for a Star Wars land

 

[btk2333]

And yet, what is one of the priorities of DHS? Jedi Training.

And what ages are watching the animated SW series & movies today?

What ages are playing the Lego Star Wars and other Star Wars themed video games today?

SW is ingrained into popular culture today with adults introducing their children to the SW universe. This popularity will only increase when the new SW movies are released. Geek culture is on the rise in popular culture today. SW references are still all over TV today. Big Bang Theory has references all over the place. The various conventions (sci-fi, comic book, cosplay, tech, etc) across the nation attract a wide variety of ages. The internet age has caused an increase in this culture and will continue to do so.

My experience in my family and circle of friends is different than yours. My step brother introduced his boys to SW at a young age and they are wild over all things SW. Same story with my friends who introduced their children. It is not some static niche demographic that loves SW.

AND the same thing will happen with HP. People will pass their love for HP to future generations.

SW popularity is not going to fall off the map anytime in the foreseeable future.

+1 well said

 

[JimmyV]

Sorry not buying this one.

Not sure what you aren't "buying". Are you suggesting that WDW is not spending money on repairs, upgrades and infrastructure? Have you looked around? It is everywhere. Do you think that 30-40 year old buildings are self-sustaining without capital expenditure?

 

[DisUniversal]

Not sure what you aren't "buying". Are you suggesting that WDW is not spending money on repairs, upgrades and infrastructure? Have you looked around? It is everywhere. Do you think that 30-40 year old buildings are self-sustaining without capital expenditure?

I think what he's saying is he's not buying that as an excuse for Disney not spending money on new attractions...and I would tend to agree with that.

 

[Firebug]

Sorry not buying this one. Disney has spent countless dollars expanding DVC everywhere. If infrastructure was such a high priority I don't think this would have happened. Unfortunately Disney is setting on there hands with attractions. In my opinion they are just doing enough to get by , and trying to reap mega profits. Universal on the other hand is building attractions at a super pace. In the end I think they will grab a bigger market share with this strategy. After all this is the same strategy Disney had in the 90's and early 2000's and it worked well!

DVC is run very separately from the theme parks. It is run like a separate land development company. The budgets are separate and DVC tends to pay for itself.

FB

 

[ChrisFL]

I just read this whole thread.

Let me preface this by saying I'm a huge fan of both Disney and Universal....however WDW's parks rank pretty low in my favorites list. Tokyo and California's parks are so much nicer and better maintained than WDW's and it's sad.

I agree that they DO have a lot of infrastructure issues, and I hope that they will be addressing those.

I do have to mention that I'm a bigger fan of Star Wars than Harry Potter...however what Universal has done with Harry Potter is amazing...and I seriously doubt Disney is going to match it with Star Wars at WDW.

Everyone seems to have missed this point though, when discussing Avatar vs Harry Potter, as far as the companies are concerned...the BIG DIFFERENCE is food and merchandise.

Harry Potter, especially in Diagon Alley, has TONS of things to buy that their fans want. Avatar has forgettable characters and glow in the dark plants. I don't know what merchandise opportunities they will have.

Star Wars would be a much better IP to introduce more merchandise options.

The attendance questions between Universal and Disney's other 3 parks need to take into account the amount people are spending on food and merch....Universal is making lots of money from all of the new offerings.

 

[flicx]

I think what he's saying is he's not buying that as an excuse for Disney not spending money on new attractions...and I would tend to agree with that.

You nailed it . I am saying the infrastructure money is not hampering building attractions. Disney is choosing to spend elsewhere. Namely my magic and FPplus to the tune of 1.5 billion. If anything Disney should have less infrastructure to take care of. They removed Pleasure Island and have rides and buildings setting empty at epcot. My opinion is they are in money grab stage right now. I believe universal is seizing the chance to close ground by building what fans want, ATTRACTIONS! We'll see but I think it's the right move!

 

[btk2333]

I just read this whole thread.

Let me preface this by saying I'm a huge fan of both Disney and Universal....however WDW's parks rank pretty low in my favorites list. Tokyo and California's parks are so much nicer and better maintained than WDW's and it's sad.

I agree that they DO have a lot of infrastructure issues, and I hope that they will be addressing those.

I do have to mention that I'm a bigger fan of Star Wars than Harry Potter...however what Universal has done with Harry Potter is amazing...and I seriously doubt Disney is going to match it with Star Wars at WDW.

Everyone seems to have missed this point though, when discussing Avatar vs Harry Potter, as far as the companies are concerned...the BIG DIFFERENCE is food and merchandise.

Harry Potter, especially in Diagon Alley, has TONS of things to buy that their fans want. Avatar has forgettable characters and glow in the dark plants. I don't know what merchandise opportunities they will have.

Star Wars would be a much better IP to introduce more merchandise options.

The attendance questions between Universal and Disney's other 3 parks need to take into account the amount people are spending on food and merch....Universal is making lots of money from all of the new offerings.

You read the whole thread ?!?! but why would you do that to yourself!!!

And I agree on Avatar- it will be a nice addition but it is NOT an answer to Harry Potter.

Disney, though doesn't need a true answer- Universal still has a lot of ground to make up. That being said I"d love for Disney to pull out the big guns and go all out with Star Wars

 

[trainingupmy4princes]

And Snow White,....20,000 Leagues...., Horizons...., World of Motion...., Mr Toads,.... Pleasure Island,..... etc.,?

Optimizing what you have in place is a strategy all Theme Parks employ, including Disney. The infrastructure is already in place, it maintains headcount, and reaches new audiences. And, it looks like that will continue with American Idol and others. It's just a sound business practice over which we can't beat either one of them up. Well, except over the Adventurer's Club.......

I love Disney and have only been to Universal once. But, my boys are clamoring for HP so we are looking at half our next trip going to Universal. One problem I see is when Universal closes something down they have plans to use that space for something. Usually it's something good like Despicable Me, HP, Diagon Alley etc.. But, WDW closes things down and it just sits there indefinitely. Quite a big section of Epcot just lays vacant except for festival stuff and they only announced closing AI and possibly Indy but no announcement of anything going in there. So while I love Disney I can see how Universal could gain on WDW.

 

[JimmyV]

My cousins know very little about Disney because my uncle is not a fan; however, they can recite the Star Wars movies line by line. They will be a new demographic that Disney will reach through the Star Wars universe.

Then by definition, they are not the Disney Demographic. We've been over this in the hypercoaster threads. People cannot say in those threads that Disney shouldn't build a hypercoaster because it does not hit the sweetspot of their target audience and at the same time say that Disney should cater to Star Wars lovers who otherwise dislike Disney. Either Disney is aiming to please its target audience or it is trying to bring in outsiders who have so far eschewed Disney. But it can't be both.

I have 50+ Star Wars books that I"ve accumulated.

And I would hope that you understand just how atypical this is. This makes you a superfan who would have a hard time looking at SW objectively. Of course you want your passion catered to. But what percentage of guests, both foreign and domestic, own a single SW book? Now compare that to the number of guests who own or who have read at least one HP book. No comparison.

Additionally, even if you are correct about the target Disney demographic, why wouldn't Disney want to expand this demographic? Some families can't afford to go when their kids are 3 and 5 and may not be able to go until their kids are 10 or 12. By that time, they may have started to outgrow the princess and pirates stage. The son may push towards going to Universal (I know I did when I was 12-16, I call these my "lost Disney years" as I had little interest in going to WDW, I only wanted the roller coasters and Jurassic Park at Islands of Adventure).

The question isn't so much about if it wants to expand its base, but rather how to do that. If Disney designed rides for the male teenage set that both you and I believe is under-served, it could theme it with Pixar (or Marvel) overlays and capture both the crowd that would likely be attracted to SW as well as not turn off the core Disney fan. The podcasts hosted by this site are instructive. Every time SW comes up as the topic of a massive expansion, the younger guys in the tech booth salivate and the folks around the table yawn. But build some really neat rides based on Disney franchises and both sets of people would cheer. The tech-boys in the booth would love a Cars coaster or Incredibles ride that was built like Mummy or Spiderman, and the folks around the table wouldn't be put off either.

I would say it is partially gender related. Disney already has the market cornered for the 51% female population, the demographic they lose out on are the families that have 2-3 teenage boys, princess and Fantasylands do not appeal to them.

But they would gain both genders if they focused on Pixar.

Also you say that kids now come across Disney products organically, Star Wars is now a Disney product, expect Disney to market it as their own IP, if they can get kids to get into Nemo, then they can broaden the appeal of a decades old franchise as well.

I suppose this is possible, but it will be tough to ingrain the SW franchise on kids in the formative years.

Well then my friend I'm afraid to say that Disney is likely going all in on Star Wars. They didn't spend $4.05 billion to keep Star Wars out of their parks

SW will be in the parks (DHS) for sure. That was never up for debate. The question is, with limited resources being driven toward attractions, will it be part of the re-birth of DHS, or will it be the sole focus of the re-birth of DHS? Disney cannot do a whole Pixar expansion and a SW expansion in the next 10 years. But it could do a whole lot of one, a whole lot of the other, or a bit of both. All I am saying is that in my opinion, a whole lot of SW at the expense of other things would be a mistake. And based on the thread from that other site, people around the conference rooms at Disney Corp. are beginning to think so too. So write to them if you disagree. My opinnion is just my opinion and won't change anything.

 

[JimmyV]

I am saying the infrastructure money is not hampering building attractions.

This sentence can only be true if resources are limitless. Otherwise, a dollar spent one way cannot be allocated to something else. If you believe that Disney has sufficient capital to:

• Make all necessary repairs to all infrastructure;
• Design and introduce MDE; and
• Build all the attractions that the visitors want

and yet chooses not to do the latter, then your view of the company is far more dim and cynical than mine. I think they found that the 40 year mark was a good time to step back and take care of what they already own and pull back from creating anything more for the time being. But neither of us is on the Board, so who knows. On the other hand, if you are saying that the decision to allocate money to the $1.5B MDE initiative was a mistake and they should have left the old systems in place, well, that is an opinion that may in fact be very rational, but we would have to have seen all the numbers and projections on cost savings and cost recovery to know for sure.

 

[DisUniversal]

This sentence can only be true if resources are limitless. Otherwise, a dollar spent one way cannot be allocated to something else. If you believe that Disney has sufficient capital to:

• Make all necessary repairs to all infrastructure;
• Design and introduce MDE; and
• Build all the attractions that the visitors want

and yet chooses not to do the latter, then your view of the company is far more dim and cynical than mine. I think they found that the 40 year mark was a good time to step back and take care of what they already own and pull back from creating anything more for the time being. But neither of us is on the Board, so who knows. On the other hand, if you are saying that the decision to allocate money to the $1.5B MDE initiative was a mistake and they should have left the old systems in place, well, that is an opinion that may in fact be very rational, but we would have to have seen all the numbers and projections on cost savings and cost recovery to know for sure.

Infrastructure doesn't all need to be addressed at once. If they waited 40 years and were surprised by it, then it's Disney who is dim. You don't see Apple ceasing new product development for a couple years so they can fix a leaky roof and repave the parking lot at HQ. You don't see GM skipping introducing new cars for a couple years so they can take care of aging factories. No company operates that way. btw: I hope the Yeti is part of the infrastructure issues they're addressing.

MDE wasn't needed...if Disney spent all their money on that instead of new attractions, it was a stupid move. There's a reason the guy who was in charge of that is no longer with the company (or on his way out).

Nobody said Disney had to build ALL the attractions visitors want, but one or two new innovative cutting edge technology 'E ticket' attractions over the past 10 years would have been nice. People weren't exactly clamoring for magic rubber bracelets and parking garages at Downtown Disney.

 

[btk2333]

Then by definition, they are not the Disney Demographic. We've been over this in the hypercoaster threads. People cannot say in those threads that Disney shouldn't build a hypercoaster because it does not hit the sweetspot of their target audience and at the same time say that Disney should cater to Star Wars lovers who otherwise dislike Disney. Either Disney is aiming to please its target audience or it is trying to bring in outsiders who have so far eschewed Disney. But it can't be both.

Why can't they try to do both? Do they not have the money? And how exactly is SW land comparable to a hypercoaster? Is Star Tours a hypercoaster? Why can't Disney create rides that appeal to all ages in a Star Wars theme?

And I would hope that you understand just how atypical this is. This makes you a superfan who would have a hard time looking at SW objectively. Of course you want your passion catered to. But what percentage of guests, both foreign and domestic, own a single SW book? Now compare that to the number of guests who own or who have read at least one HP book. No comparison.

Harry Potter is a book series, Star Wars is a movie series- what percentage of guests have seen at least 1 Star Wars movie- I would guess those numbers are similar to the number of people who have read at least one HP book

The question isn't so much about if it wants to expand its base, but rather how to do that. If Disney designed rides for the male teenage set that both you and I believe is under-served, it could theme it with Pixar (or Marvel) overlays and capture both the crowd that would likely be attracted to SW as well as not turn off the core Disney fan. The podcasts hosted by this site are instructive. Every time SW comes up as the topic of a massive expansion, the younger guys in the tech booth salivate and the folks around the table yawn. But build some really neat rides based on Disney franchises and both sets of people would cheer. The tech-boys in the booth would love a Cars coaster or Incredibles ride that was built like Mummy or Spiderman, and the folks around the table wouldn't be put off either.

You acknowledge here that Disney is trying to expand its base yet earlier you say it's not possible for Disney to expand their base and appease their current fans? You're ok with Pixar and Marvel but not Star Wars? Neither are original Disney IP. Why can't Disney incorporate Star Wars the way they've incorporated other acquired IP? Also remember WDW CANNOT use Marvel at Disney World. I'm also not sure I understand why Marvel would somehow turn off the core base less so than Star Wars? They have a very similar target audience... And I don't understand how you can call Marvel more of a Disney franchise than Star Wars is? Marvel is IN UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. Also your comment about the podcasts seem to be an argument in favor of Star Wars. If the younger guys like it, then they are the ones who are going to be coming to WDW for longer and longer. I can't say I've listened to the DIS unplugged podcasts for a long time, they've never been my favorites I have several others that I prefer.

But they would gain both genders if they focused on Pixar.

Would they? I don't think so- anyway they don't NEED to gain young girls at this point, they have a NEED to gain young boys so they need to build something that focuses on that demographic. New Fantasyland was very girl-centric (granted not as much so as was originally planned but still). If DHS expansions are boy centric is that a bad thing?

I suppose this is possible, but it will be tough to ingrain the SW franchise on kids in the formative years.

You and I disagree on this because you seem to think that Star Wars has somehow disappeared in the formative years now

SW will be in the parks (DHS) for sure. That was never up for debate. The question is, with limited resources being driven toward attractions, will it be part of the re-birth of DHS, or will it be the sole focus of the re-birth of DHS? Disney cannot do a whole Pixar expansion and a SW expansion in the next 10 years. But it could do a whole lot of one, a whole lot of the other, or a bit of both. All I am saying is that in my opinion, a whole lot of SW at the expense of other things would be a mistake. And based on the thread from that other site, people around the conference rooms at Disney Corp. are beginning to think so too. So write to them if you disagree. My opinion is just my opinion and won't change anything.

I'm not sure to which other site you're referring. I hope to God Disney doesn't just port Cars land to DHS, I want something really new at WDW. Star Wars has so many possibilities and addresses many of the demographic problems that Disney may be having