News Disney plans to accelerate Parks investment to $60 billion over 10 years

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think we should stop discussing Bocabear's random derailing comment as all it's done is caused this thread to derail off topic and it doesn't need to

It’s a discussion board for fun…
Not a meeting of the UN security council.

What’s “on topic”? Have a daily update about a pie in the sky number that will pay for…something?…and be ready…sometime?

Lighten up a bit

 

[Gusey]

It’s a discussion board for fun…
Not a meeting of the UN security council.

What’s “on topic”? Have a daily update about a pie in the sky number that will pay for…something?…and be ready…sometime?

Lighten up a bit

Or, he could start a thread about the topic he wants to talk about instead of hijacking another one?
There was plenty on that investment poster from Monday to discuss about on this thread (Are some of those things they mentioned good investments, lack of Starcruiser mention, what they are focusing on next and what's considered big projects vs small etc.), and yet here we are talking about Disney's use of the word Springs because someone decided that Disney had used it too much over the last 30 years at a grand total of 4

 

[Gusey]

In an attempt to get back on topic, is it interesting that Disney didn't mention anything about investing in the 50th anniversary, or is that just covered in the 20+ entertainment

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Or, he could start a thread about the topic he wants to talk about instead of hijacking another one?
There was plenty on that investment poster from Monday to discuss about on this thread (Are some of those things they mentioned good investments, lack of Starcruiser mention, what they are focusing on next and what's considered big projects vs small etc.), and yet here we are talking about Disney's use of the word Springs because someone decided that Disney had used it too much over the last 30 years at a grand total of 4

Ok…how about we talk about them claiming timeshare blocks as “investment”…

Who’s doing the investing there?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

In an attempt to get back on topic, is it interesting that Disney didn't mention anything about investing in the 50th anniversary, or is that just covered in the 20+ entertainment

It was a disaster…so why mention it?

You’re not actually serious with this, are you?

 

[Gusey]

You’re not actually serious with this, are you?

I'm sorry. Just having a fun discussion on this discussion board. If you don't like it, just ignore it and scroll on

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm sorry. Just having a fun discussion on this discussion board. If you don't like it, just ignore it and scroll on

I thought we were serious about this kinda lock solid guaranteed stuff?

 

[Chi84]

Story book dining?

Addition by subtraction

That’s a great character dinner. Better food than most resort restaurants.

Not everything is for everybody.

 

[UNCgolf]

Bit late but wonder if it includes all the new restaurants at the hotels and Disney Springs. I thought I'd actually check how many new dining locations have opened since 2016 that I could remember:
13@ Parks: Tiffins, PizzeRizzo, Satuli Canteen, Baseline Taphouse, Woody's Lunchbox, Takumi-Tei, Regal Eagle Smokehouse, Space 220, Connections, Roundup Rodeo, Shiki-Sai: Sushi Izakaya, GEO-82, Beak and Barrel,
12 @ Wider Resort: 4 at Riviera (Bar Riva, Topolino's Terrace, Le Petit Cafe, Primo Piatto), Galactic Starcuiser's, Summerhouse at the Lake, Gideon's, The Edison, Marie and Enzo's, Enzo's Hideaway, Salt & Straw, Chicken Guy

A few more I could come up with:
The Polite Pig, Spice Road, Wine Bar George, Jaleo, Story book dining, Ale and Compass, Geyser Point, Toledo, Dahlia Lounge, Barcelona Lounge.

30+ seems to be a legitimate claim without massaging the truth or even leaning on the full weight of Disney Springs redo or snack carts.

Yeah, I was thinking it had to include both Disney Springs and replacements.

However, to me, framing a swap/rebrand of an existing dining location as new is misleading at best. I think a "new" dining location should be something that adds dining capacity, the same as "new" bathrooms should actually add more toilets. If they changed the Tangled bathrooms to Cinderella bathrooms, I wouldn't consider them new.

 

[BrianLo]

Yeah, I was thinking it had to include both Disney Springs and replacements.

However, to me, framing a swap/rebrand of an existing dining location as new is misleading at best. I think a "new" dining location should be something that adds dining capacity, the same as "new" bathrooms should actually add more toilets. If they changed the Tangled bathrooms to Cinderella bathrooms, I wouldn't consider them new.

That’s fair. I’m quite sure we are forgetting things but I think there may actually be close to 25+ new build venues. The majority of those are. We also forgot three more venues for Galaxies Edge. Depends how you feel about something like Bongos. But in terms of their claim being related to investment, it’s representative of a new build spend.

I’ve always been of the perspective that the 2015 ten year cycle was quite good. We tend to forget a lot. It just wasn’t enough to make up for two prior decades of decline, still compares unfavorably to Eisners first decade and the Pandemic killed their momentum.

If they actually spend the 17B or whatever on WDW, then they’ll have put that momentum back on track.

 

[DisDude33]

In an attempt to get back on topic, is it interesting that Disney didn't mention anything about investing in the 50th anniversary, or is that just covered in the 20+ entertainment

Thinking about the stuff that was done specifically for the 50th it would make sense to me that it was all part of the entertainment investments.

 

[Gusey]

Yeah, I was thinking it had to include both Disney Springs and replacements.

However, to me, framing a swap/rebrand of an existing dining location as new is misleading at best. I think a "new" dining location should be something that adds dining capacity, the same as "new" bathrooms should actually add more toilets. If they changed the Tangled bathrooms to Cinderella bathrooms, I wouldn't consider them new.

Yeah, that's true. I think if it's a different themed restaurant with a different menu, there's enough of a difference. Like Regal Eagle for example has enough changes (and added the bar outside too) to make it enough of a "new" restaurant compared to Liberty Inn

 

[UNCgolf]

That’s fair. I’m quite sure we are forgetting things but I think there may actually be close to 25+ new build venues. The majority of those are. We also forgot three more venues for Galaxies Edge. Depends how you feel about something like Bongos. But in terms of their claim being related to investment, it’s representative of a new build spend.

I’ve always been of the perspective that the 2015 ten year cycle was quite good. We tend to forget a lot. It just wasn’t enough to make up for two prior decades of decline, still compares unfavorably to Eisners first decade and the Pandemic killed their momentum.

If they actually spend the 17B or whatever on WDW, then they’ll have put that momentum back on track.

They added a lot. I think there were some quality concerns, like with Toy Story Land, and even Galaxy's Edge to an extent (I don't think Galaxy's Edge is bad at all, but I do think it isn't as good as it should have been). Or maybe not even quality (personally I think TSL is quite poor almost across the board, but that's subjective) but efficiency (I guess?) in terms of how badly designed it is. Also stuff like TRON going into a bad location that really hamstrings future options.

Yeah, that's true. I think if it's a different themed restaurant with a different menu, there's enough of a difference. Like Regal Eagle for example has enough changes (and added the bar outside too) to make it enough of a "new" restaurant compared to Liberty Inn

It's definitely a fine, subjective line. I think it's even harder with rides, where I wouldn't call Test Track 3.0 a new ride but I might consider Indiana Jones attraction a new ride, even though both used the existing ride system etc. -- and then I'll definitely consider Encanto a new ride, even though technically Primeval Whirl was there at one point.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

That’s fair. I’m quite sure we are forgetting things but I think there may actually be close to 25+ new build venues. The majority of those are. We also forgot three more venues for Galaxies Edge. Depends how you feel about something like Bongos. But in terms of their claim being related to investment, it’s representative of a new build spend.

I’ve always been of the perspective that the 2015 ten year cycle was quite good. We tend to forget a lot. It just wasn’t enough to make up for two prior decades of decline, still compares unfavorably to Eisners first decade and the Pandemic killed their momentum.

If they actually spend the 17B or whatever on WDW, then they’ll have put that momentum back on track.

One of the main pillars of the argument about wdw investment and direction…and it’s amplifying…is swapping over building and the drumbeat keeps growing louder.

They may have to go out of their comfort zone soon and take some
Actual bottomline measures.

Did I mention I was just there? There no price you can increase the ancillaries to account for empty magic kingdoms on weekend days and restaurants with 75% open tables in many spots. It just can’t work as a “plan”.

The bleeder is bigger than the band aid

 

[BrianLo]

They added a lot. I think there were some quality concerns, like with Toy Story Land, and even Galaxy's Edge to an extent (I don't think Galaxy's Edge is bad at all, but I do think it isn't as good as it should have been). Or maybe not even quality (personally I think TSL is quite poor almost across the board, but that's subjective) but efficiency (I guess?) in terms of how badly designed it is. Also stuff like TRON going into a bad location that really hamstrings future options.

Absolutely. Quality is nearly always inconsistent. Even Disney Sea has weak nooks.

But generally speaking compared to their competitor their short list of things they have done in the last 15 years that universally is agreed upon needs to be entirely replaced is shockingly short for a resort twice the size.

Most of their true errors came during Eisners back half.

 

[UNCgolf]

Absolutely. Quality is nearly always inconsistent. Even Disney Sea has weak nooks.

But generally speaking compared to their competitor their short list of things they have done in the last 15 years that universally is agreed upon needs to be entirely replaced is shockingly short for a resort twice the size.

Most of their true errors came during Eisners back half.

Yeah, I think EPCOT has the biggest issues. Most of the central spine (outside of the store/Connections) and Communicore Hall are generally agreed upon as misfires.

EDIT: Well, and Moana if that's considered part of the central spine, which I guess it is since it replaced part of Communicore/Innoventions. I think people are generally pleased with it. But Moana has a location issue to me where it would make more sense between (although it would obviously be better to use that as a spot for a new pavilion) or at least closer to the Land and the Seas than where it is.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

Yeah, I was thinking it had to include both Disney Springs and replacements.

However, to me, framing a swap/rebrand of an existing dining location as new is misleading at best. I think a "new" dining location should be something that adds dining capacity, the same as "new" bathrooms should actually add more toilets. If they changed the Tangled bathrooms to Cinderella bathrooms, I wouldn't consider them new.

I don't understand that reasoning as far as the definition of new. If something is there that wasn't there before, how is it not by any definition new? My neighbor buys a car, trading in his old car as part of the deal, I think everyone is going to asking him about his new car, even though he still only has 1 car. When Pandora 3 comes out and its playing in the theaters, I am going to be going to see a NEW movie that playing there, even though that movie is just replacing another movie, and the theater isn't adding a new screen and seats and playing more movies.

Is Zootopia at the tree of life really not a NEW show...because there was an unrelated show at that same location before?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't understand that reasoning as far as the definition of new. If something is there that wasn't there before, how is it not by any definition new? My neighbor buys a car, trading in his old car as part of the deal, I think everyone is going to asking him about his new car, even though he still only has 1 car. When Pandora 3 comes out and its playing in the theaters, I am going to be going to see a NEW movie that playing there, even though that movie is just replacing another movie, and the theater isn't adding a new screen and seats and playing more movies.

Is Zootopia at the tree of life really not a NEW show...because there was an unrelated show at that same location before?

You don’t understand the concept of closing something and reopening it
With little if any meaningful changes and the effect being minimal?

Or how about replacing something with something new and people still wanting the old thing?

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

You don’t understand the concept of closing something and reopening it
With little if any meaningful changes and the effect being minimal?

Or how about replacing something with something new and people still wanting the old thing?

Good it’s almost embarrassing how you try to post things or responses with no facts, logic, or even anywhere near the actual topic of discussion. Get it through your head that no one cares about what you think is meaningful, what you think is good or bad, or what you think needs to be replaced or not.

If something is new or not is a function of did it exist or not prior. It has nothing to do with who subjectively likes it or not, who wanted it to change or not, or if it’s good or not.

 

[UNCgolf]

I don't understand that reasoning as far as the definition of new. If something is there that wasn't there before, how is it not by any definition new? My neighbor buys a car, trading in his old car as part of the deal, I think everyone is going to asking him about his new car, even though he still only has 1 car. When Pandora 3 comes out and its playing in the theaters, I am going to be going to see a NEW movie that playing there, even though that movie is just replacing another movie, and the theater isn't adding a new screen and seats and playing more movies.

Is Zootopia at the tree of life really not a NEW show...because there was an unrelated show at that same location before?

It's why I mentioned it's a fine line, and the conversation can be different depending on the framing. The Zootopia show is certainly a new show in some ways. It's not new in terms of adding capacity to the park, though, despite being a new show in terms of content. I think it makes sense to call it a new show in general, but it wouldn't necessarily make sense to call it a new show if you were discussing additions to a park because it's just a replacement/content swap of existing capacity.

If Cosmic Ray's introduces a whole new menu, but it's still called Cosmic Ray's and the interior doesn't change, is that a new dining location? If the name changes and the interior changes, but it serves the exact same food, is that a new dining location (Pizza Planet to PizzeRizzo probably falls into this category)? I think people would be more inclined to call the latter new, even though the former is actually adding new food and the latter isn't. Neither adds dining capacity, though.

Regardless, it's not really black and white other than when something is a completely new build on previously unused space. Otherwise I think there's nuance to it -- it's essentially an academic discussion beyond hard numbers like capacity increases, though. Doesn't really matter.