Search results

About as perfect an example of moving the goalposts there can be. Yes. An increase in this environment, with the kind of revenue they are pulling in, is good news.

So far, it looks like there has only been one quarter of lower attendance mentioned in the quarterly reports for WDW: Q1. Q2, as you mentioned, they didn't touch on attendance, but since results were pretty good for Q2, it seems safe to assume attendance was either up or just flat. For Q3...

Softening demand will certainly impact revenue but not necessarily attendance. Depends on how much they lean on discounting. That said I agree that the discounting will probably be minimal and there will most likely be an impact on attendance.

Did they say their attendance was down this year? So far they've been suggesting it's been flat this past quarter ... no?

Yeah... it's a interesting question. Generally around the question of Length of Stay. If people are spending seven days on avg at WDW, they aren't increasing their trip length to include more park days, they're just switching around which park gets a 2nd day. New thing at DAK this year? Cut out...

Nothing too concerning or different from what was being reported. Seems to be proof that attendance patterns ARE shifting and while fewer may be going during the summer (due to heat), it's being made up for in other periods of the year. One thing of note tho: It seems that, with Epcot going...

That wasn't necessarily a good thing, considering how much Lasseter overspent to bring back the Flying Sauces for a couple months.

It's a great time to travel internationally. Doesn't really have anything to do with the content of the park. Unless you're suggesting they are just tired of the quintessential Disney experience, and we DO need to look at replacing the castle.

Which is what?

Failure isn't the right word. I think they all know what the problem is, there just isn't an easy answer to fix it. The quintessential Disney Parks® Experience was something set in stone, some 15 years before MK was built. History and nostalgia was dictating what the park would be like, and how...

This is absolutely true. This I disagree with. We've seen them spend, literally billions of dollars, to upgrade and enhance the other parks and it never really draws people way from MK. People go to WDW to get their picture in front of the castle and to do "Disney." It creates all sorts of...

Sorry I'm trying to get you to acknowledge the holes in your arguments. Cars Land is great, because somehow you can separate it from the IP, and the placement and theme in the park, but this decision is terrible because you can't separate out that Cars don't belong in MK and somehow already know...

No actually, this is exactly the point. You are completely willing to accept what is there now. People claimed every one of those earlier changes were a sign that Disneyland was done for, and yet, time marches on and people learn to accept and appreciate the new. They will here too.

You yourself said that Cars Land at DCA was gorgeous, even after you admitted it didn't really have much to do with California. So again: if you are willing to accept that something doesn't fit the theme, but still can be beautifully done, why not a new Frontierland?

LOL if they could program people, why not just program them to like what is already there and save the money?

If you're willing to accept that DCA's Cars Land can have value outside of the IP, why not the new MK Frontierland? The land can still be gorgeous.

It's been changed and updated quite a few times. It lost Cascade Peak in 1998. It lost most of the trees in 2002. It was updated in 2009 (to add stuff missing since the trees were gone) and then shortened and reconfigured in 2016 with the SWGE changes. If you remember what it was like in the...

People said Cars Land at DCA wouldn't be relevant after 10 years, and here we are.

It's pretty clear... it's underutilized.

They need to get rid of Frontierland and people love Disney•Pixar CARS©