A big difference I noticed between Disney and Universal

[squidward]

Uh.. no. That's not true at all.

I sell a hell of a lot of Frozen merchandise where I work to little boys and girls, teenage boys and girls and adult women where it is almost definitely for them and not children. My manager is a man and he goes around with an Olaf note pad.

So yeah, not true.

Yeah, Frozen is HUGE among boys in high schools all across the country. You say them roaming the halls all over the place with Frozen t-shirts.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Well, because of Furious 7's spectacular success, a F$F attraction is being fast tracked at USF and is to replace Disaster! Which is a pseudo-classic attraction, in that it uses Earthquake's ride system. And Earthquake was an opening day attraction. They also just announced Furious 8.

And they were pretty quick at getting the Minions in the parks.

But I think the major point is that Disney has been obvious and pandering with Frozen.

 

[AndyS2992]

Yeah, Frozen is HUGE among boys in high schools all across the country. You say them roaming the halls all over the place with Frozen t-shirts.

You'd be surprised. Frozen is pretty big with teen gay guys.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

You'd be surprised. Frozen is pretty big with teen gay guys.

Oh, that wicked power of Adele Dazeem.

 

[squidward]

If Frozen 2 grosses less than $1.5 billion worldwide, I'll personally pay for you and three family members to stay six nights in the Bora Bora Bungalows with seven day park hoppers. Airfare, too.

Who CARES if Frozen is popular NOW? "Now" is when guests are visiting and wanting to experience it. You'd rather wait a few decades until all the little girls who love it today are in their twenties and thirties?

If anything, Disney should be doing more of this. Things like stage shows that can be rapidly changed are a great way to keep the parks fresh. Otherwise you end up with stale, stagnant shows like BATB and Indy. Strike while the iron is hot, not just for financial reasons, but to give guests what they want WHEN they want it.

I have 4 members. You have to pay for all of them.

It mat gross that much, but it may not. There's an awful lot of annoyed people about the Norway fiasco. I don't have a major issue with stage shows. I have an issue with them going completely against what World Showcase stands for just to shove it down our throats even more. Leave it at the Magic Kingdom and Studios where stuff like that belongs.

 

[JoeCamel]

Nobody is going to WDW for a Frozen stage show. It's minimal incremental revenue at best. It's a guest satisfaction play for an underserved demographic. Little girls don't have much "for them" at DHS and/or Epcot. The "cash cow" is box office, home media, and consumer products. None of those are impacted much by theme park presence.

If you believe no one goes to the MK for Frozen you have not been there for rope drop pre rope walk. All traffic was going to one place and racing to get there. The E&A M&G. People were getting trampled, I saw one man leap the railing in town square with his daughter on his shoulders to try to get there first. A week later the rope walk was implemented which continues to this day. All as a result of people having to get their Frozen fix.

Too much, they could have the same thing out in the parking lot and save the parks for those who appreciate them.

 

[squidward]

You'd be surprised. Frozen is pretty big with teen gay guys.

So is Justin Bieber.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

If you believe no one goes to the MK for Frozen you have not been there for rope drop pre rope walk. All traffic was going to one place and racing to get there. The E&A M&G. People were getting trampled, I saw one man leap the railing in town square with his daughter on his shoulders to try to get there first. A week later the rope walk was implemented which continues to this day. All as a result of people having to get their Frozen fix.

Too much, they could have the same thing out in the parking lot and save the parks for those who appreciate them.

That wasn't my point. Yes, people who go to the Magic Kingdom want to experience the Frozen stuff. But those people would go to the Magic Kingdom regardless. Adding Frozen will draw people to Frozen, but will have a minimal effect on attendance in total. They're drawing the princess crowd away from other Fantasyland attractions more than they're brining completely new guests into the park.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It mat gross that much, but it may not. There's an awful lot of annoyed people about the Norway fiasco. I don't have a major issue with stage shows. I have an issue with them going completely against what World Showcase stands for just to shove it down our throats even more. Leave it at the Magic Kingdom and Studios where stuff like that belongs.

I had a feeling that's where you were going and there are already threads for that. It seems like you're not so much upset with the presence of Frozen as you are with the replacement of Maelstrom specifically.

Conceptually I agree with you BTW. But the operational reality is that Fantasyland doesn't have the capacity to support a Frozen attraction in perpetuity while Epcot has plenty of room. I also think you're being overly pessimistic when you described the conversion as if the entire pavilion will now be Frozen. On the contrary, I expect that when it's all done you'll be able to stand in the middle of the Norway pavilion and not notice any difference beyond the signage of the ride itself.

 

[JoeCamel]

That wasn't my point. Yes, people who go to the Magic Kingdom want to experience the Frozen stuff. But those people would go to the Magic Kingdom regardless. Adding Frozen will draw people to Frozen, but will have a minimal effect on attendance in total. They're drawing the princess crowd away from other Fantasyland attractions more than they're brining completely new guests into the park.

Those people (and they are still there today) go to the MK so that they can get in the M&G line first. Whatever they do after is irrelevant. They went to the park to see a couple of actors dressed up as animation figures for 2 minutes and are willing to mow down anyone that gets in their way.

You say no one goes to the park for Frozen but that is simply not true. I have seen it in person - have you??

 

[Goofyernmost]

Not meant to be a which is better type thread, but just an observation. Universal owns the Fast and Furious series, which has grossed over $3.6 billion. Part 7 alone, in just it's 4th week, is going to pass Frozen on the list of all time biggest movies. Yet while Disney has basically turned WDW into Walt Frozen World, Universal hasn't shoved any F&F attractions down our throat. I'm sure at some point, they will. They'd be kind of crazy not to. But jeez, can you imagine if it was Disney? "It's made a billion dollars worldwide guys....Let's close down a couple classic rides, throw some F&F in there, have a Vin Diesel lookalike meet-n-greet, change Lights Motors Action to a F&F stunt show, change Test Track to a F&F theme, change Indy Speedway to an F&F theme."

The point I'm making is I used to think Universal had gone a bit overboard with the Harry Potter stuff, but there's obviously a time tested product there. Same goes for F&F. The 1st one came out 14 years ago. Disney on the other hand just grabs whatever is hot, gives no thought to the future, and milks the cow for all it's worth. In a kind of backwards way, that's what they're doing with Avatar. It's as if they checked out the top 10 money makers of all time and realized they had their pick of Avatar or Titanic and went with Avatar.

My wouldn't that be a fun attraction. Based on a tremendous actual disaster that killed hundreds of people. What a great ride that would make. Let's see... you're on a sinking ship in the frozen North Atlantic trying to fit 2000 people in 700 people worth of lifeboats. Oh, the fun. If you are lucky enough to make the life boat you get a free sticker commemorating your survival. Where does that queue start! Can't wait to see it.

Those people (and they are still there today) go to the MK so that they can get in the M&G line first. Whatever they do after is irrelevant. They went to the park to see a couple of actors dressed up as animation figures for 2 minutes and are willing to mow down anyone that gets in their way.

You say no one goes to the park for Frozen but that is simply not true. I have seen it in person - have you??

I believe his point was that even if Frozen didn't exist, those people would still be going to MK. They may, out of necessity currently, practically kill people to get there first because their little princess is going to whine all day if she doesn't get to meet them, but, if they only went to go to Frozen they would be leaving immediately after the encounter. I don't think that you have seen that in person, have you?

 

[Phil12]

So is Justin Bieber.

That would be great if they get Justin Bieber to voice one of the characters in Frozen II. They could call him Sparky and he could be the guy that lights the fire to make Olaf all warm and slushy.

 

[Nick Wilde]

You keep telling yourself that, because clearly those shows weren't jammed pack and clearly there wasn't such a demand that they extended the dates......and with that I bid you farewell. The list of dust sniffers continues to grow.

You tend to make good and consistent points in most threads. but calling someone a dust sniffer...come on now.

I don't mind so much the sarcasm. Even the rudeness. Heck, be a jerk every so often. I join in myself from time to time.

But calling someone a pixie duster or doom and gloomer is one of my pet peeves.

I consistently call people that when they show the symptoms. I love WDW and the Disney company as much as anyone here, but to turn a blind eye to anything they do that should be corrected is neglectful and ludicrous. But don't worry, from now on instead of pointing out their new label, I will simply start adding to the ignore list. I prefer to be in the company of other rational Disney nerds.

To add to this. I find calling someone a "dust sniffer" because they don't agree with you, is about as immature as it gets. And this last post is laughable.

 

[draybook]

To add to this. I find calling someone a "dust sniffer" because they don't agree with you, is about as immature as it gets. And this last post is laughable.

It's not because they disagree, it's because they don't want to admit to reality. But I'm a man of my word. So, good day to you and I hope all of your Disney dealings from here on out are enjoyable.

 

[Nick Wilde]

To add to this. I find calling someone a "dust sniffer" because they don't agree with you, is about as immature as it gets. And this last post is laughable.

It's not because they disagree, it's because they don't want to admit to reality. But I'm a man of my word. So, good day to you and I hope all of your Disney dealings from here on out are enjoyable.

"To add to this, I find calling someone a 'dust sniffer' is about as immature as it gets.'" Also, they ARE "admitting to reality." They're just not admitting to your opinion, which you believe is reality. I don't know which one is reality, but neither does anyone else. It's just opinions.

 

[squidward]

My wouldn't that be a fun attraction. Based on a tremendous actual disaster that killed hundreds of people. What a great ride that would make. Let's see... you're on a sinking ship in the frozen North Atlantic trying to fit 2000 people in 700 people worth of lifeboats. Oh, the fun. If you are lucky enough to make the life boat you get a free sticker commemorating your survival. Where does that queue start! Can't wait to see it.

Well, yeah - That's kind of my point. What choice did they have?

Hey, there's one theme park building a Hunger Games attraction.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Well, because of Furious 7's spectacular success, a F$F attraction is being fast tracked at USF and is to replace Disaster!

Really? I'm all for a Furious ride, but not at the expense of Disaster!.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Really? I'm all for a Furious ride, but not at the expense of Disaster!.

Disaster! Right now is.....well, a disaster. The ride vehicles need completely replaced along with the entire control system and most of the effects need MAJOR work. Historically, that is a bad omen in the Universal universe.

But the rumor is the entire San Francisco area will be replaced.

Right now, they are knocking them out of the park. Hogsmeade, Springfield, and Diagon Alley are fantastic. Kong will be impressive. As will the new water park. So I'll give UC the benefit of the doubt for now.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You say no one goes to the park for Frozen but that is simply not true. I have seen it in person - have you??

You're taking it out of context. Do you understand the concept of incremental revenue? It doesn't seem like you do. When I made the comment that you're taking issue with, I was responding to a poster who described Frozen in the parks as a "cash cow." Frozen in the parks is only a "cash cow" if there are guests who would not otherwise come to the parks without Frozen. Get it? Frozen could be the number one attraction but that wouldn't mean a hill of beans if that popularity didn't translate to additional tickets sold. I contend that it's NOT translating to additional tickets sold, and that the crowds you see are just being cannibalized from other attractions.

 

[Matt_Black]

Count me in as one of the people who don't mind Frozen in the parks.

As for the "It's for little girls!" argument, you do not make over a billion dollars in the box office and have one of the best-selling soundtracks of all time if you only appeal to that demographic. And that's to say nothing of all the fan-generated content inspired by the film. 8-year old girls don't photoshop internet memes, after all, or I would at least hope they don't.