Lora Baines Bradley
Well-Known Member
My roommate is furloughed and her maingate pass still works, she's been going lately (unless she has an AP she hasn't mentioned, but I don't think so).
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
On layoffs, very bad attendance, and Iger's legacy being one of disgrace
- Thread starter pheneix
- Start date
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
This was a study / concept I reviewed back in college. I believe it was pitched as a smaller entertainment venue starting in Chicago with a resort / theater and a handful of attractions. It was pitched as a long weekend type experience. I don't remember all the details, I just remember not really thinking it was viable. Of course, I'm often wrong.
flynnibus
Premium Member
All one has to do is look at the cruise lines to see that Disney knows how to do classy - not just All Stars resorts.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Like Busch Gardens Williamsburg? I wonder how it would do if it were more north and closer to the population center of the DC to Boston corridor. Would the trade off of being more convenient for a mass of additional people outweigh the shorter season it would be open due to weather?
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Busch Gardens is sort of what I’m thinking. I like Busch Gardens, but (in my opinion) the quality theming and environment is hurt by the dependence on big coasters and gimmicky things (like the low-quality Battle for Eire thing). Maybe if they added lots of dark rides?
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
Busch Gardens is owned by SeaWorld Entertainment. Nuff said.
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
Why is it such a bad thing to have amazing coasters? IMO Disney is hurt by not having some world class coasters.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
It's not a bad thing to have great coasters. It just depends on the type of park and what you're interested in.
If you're looking for something heavily themed, it's difficult to have big coasters because they almost inherently detract from any surrounding theming unless you hide them in themed facades. But there's only so much you can do with a hidden coaster; you can't build the really giant, intense coasters inside a box because the costs would be astronomical.
It's a trade-off for Disney. If they build some giant, exposed coasters, it would make some people happy, but it would significantly detract from the experience for other people. Considering most of Disney is built around theming and they're already far behind other parks in terms of thrill ride coasters, it likely wouldn't make any sense for them to pivot to coasters. They wouldn't attract enough new people to make it financially worthwhile.
If Disney really wanted to get into the coaster race, their best option would be to build a 5th gate that was entirely for coasters. There's almost no way to put them in any of the existing parks without causing serious problems for the sightlines, theming, and so on.
EDIT: Of course they didn't theme the Guardians of the Galaxy box at all, but that's also caused a whole lot of complaints. And Future World is the one area that doesn't really have obvious theming (although no one could argue it doesn't ruin sightlines). It still has it to an extent, of course, it's just more subtle -- a giant box certainly doesn't fit, but it's not quite as jarring to the general public as it would be if it was in the middle of the Magic Kingdom or Animal Kingdom (which is also why people are concerned about the Tron building not being effectively hidden from sight).
Last edited:
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
It’s a bit more complicated than that. When they, and SW, were owned by Busch, those parks were top notch. Blame the InBev merger and the Blackstone Group for its current sorry state.
*minor detail, but Busch Entertainment bought the SeaWorld parks from Harcourt (Houghton Mifflin). The company was renamed after SeaWorld when Blackstone bought it.
For me, a giant swan or fish statue is far more distracting from the experience than a giant roller coaster.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
For me, a giant swan or fish statue is far more distracting from the experience than a giant roller coaster.
It's the same type of thing, though. Those may be worse for you; roller coasters would be worse for other people.
Personally I think they're both bad solely in the context of Disney parks and what they're trying to do (or at least what they were trying to do in the past).
Last edited:
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Sorry! I actually thought of your posts in the past when I wrote that about coasters. I didn't mean to offend you. I just prefer Disney's approach to other parks' approach.
@UNCgolf did a terrific job at expressing my thoughts, and I've seen this "debate" pop up from time to time around here. But here's why I appreciate the non-coaster approach:
To me, the visible coaster track ruins the theming of a ride because it kind of breaks the illusion/story most of my favorite rides usually include. The Matterhorn, Space Mountain, Everest, RSR/TT, BTMRR, etc. are coasters, but because you don't see the tangle of tracks sitting there when you walk up to the ride or while you're waiting in the queue, your imagination can sort of take over. You're flying in space, you're on a runaway train, you're on a bobsled. It's a much more difficult and expensive approach, but the result is much more interesting to me.
I'm also not huge fan of the approaches to "theming" I see done of typical coasters. You can dress up the cars of a coaster train to look like motorcycles, a dragon, or cars, but it's obviously still a roller coaster because there's the track sitting there like a jungle gym.
It's also (apparently) really difficult to build a coaster for a broad range of preferences. The really intense giga-coasters and multiple-inversion things are not necessarily something the entire family is going to want to do. "Less intense," on a coaster, seems often to be considered "less fun." Disney's classic approach fills in the gap with imaginative theming.
All of this is why I'm not pleased with Slinky Dog Dash (maybe Andy was playing with a miniature roller coaster set in his back yard?), Goofy's Barnstormer or Flying School (cheap), R'n'RC (a plastic car on a coaster track, "driving" through Hollywood?), the Incredicoaster (layer a very meta "amusement park" theme with a bunch of plastic figures and a weak story) or the new TRON (the outdoor section seems to be more advertising than themed experience). I'm still not sure about GoTG.
Don't get me wrong, these are fun! But to me, roller coasters are fun because they move you around in ways you don't otherwise get to (safely) experience. Disney's better-themed rides try to "hide the tracks" both figuratively and literally.
Yeah, I would say the closest equivalent to what _caleb is discussing as a hypothetical is the Busch Entertainment Corporation, specifically from 2000 up until its sale to private equity after the hostile takeover of Anheuser-Busch. My understanding of the industry at the time was that Disney saw the Orlando operations of SeaWorld and specifically Discovery Cove with some level of envy; I know there was talk for years on end of how WDPR wanted to create something like Discovery Cove, though it never materialized obviously. I also believe the 10 year plan for Williamsburg near the end of Busch management was to eventually develop it into a resort complex. As a local to the park, it is very much a shame that the family is no longer in charge of BGW specifically, I considered it the crown jewel of the chain.
Even then, BEC was a very small business unit for the company; it grew from a primarily promotional venture in the 70s to an ostensibly promotional venture. While the parks almost certainly made a profit, the primary goal was not to turn them into an ATM; it was to elevate and permeate the brands of AB beer. I do not think a highly themed regional size themed amusement park could survive as a sole creative business venture. It would have to be tied to some other business that is not as effervescent and be elevated by that business's brands, or other established IP, to gain any foothold.
Sadly, some new.
There are more coming after Halloween.
More middle management and behind the scenes trimming.
WDW is really being silent in their restructuring moves, but it's not Oct 1 yet..
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Like Universal WDW would have to file a WARN notice in advance if they were making the same move.
Parker in NYC
Well-Known Member
Disney does not need to layoff the same percentage of regular employees because they had the college program. In any case Orlando is in for a hard time because of all the layoffs coming not only from Disney, Universal and Seaworld but all the other hotels, restaurants and attractions.