Search results

200 employees, making a generous average of $100K a year, would be only $20 million in labor costs per year. If they cut the price to $500 per person, instead of $1500-$2500, and sold 90% of the rooms, they would’ve made $40 million in revenue. Either their labor is way higher than that or they...

Sure, I changed it. That’s fine to try out, even if it’s still nuts, but when it doesn’t work, there has to be an appealing version of this thing that requires far less than 500+ employees.

This thing would’ve made around $100 million in revenue a year if sold out each night. I feel like there’s no reason they shouldn’t be able to charge 1/4 of what they were and still make a profit.

Here’s a better use of the money. And make the top speed 74.9 mph!

Feeling like you got your money’s worth, and feeling like something is worth the money, are two different things. It’s no real defense of the idea to say that, for most people who went because they already thought it would be worth it, it ended up being worth it. The problem was its concept and...

You can’t take the thrill out of the thrill ride. It would never work. Unless what you replace is unfathomably mindblowingly exceptional, on a level better than anything Disney has ever done, it will be directly compared to the last version and considered a major downgrade by almost everyone...

Hilarious! We? Lol, the thing was ridiculously priced.

But why would they ever take away the most enjoyable part of the ride? What would they replace it with?

The big difference is one looks far nicer than the other, and even if they are similar, it’s not like that “carnival” ride is even ugly. I think the lights on the ball are a great use of modern lighting that just wasn’t available until recently.

The reason many people think it will be almost a clone is because Disney wants to minimize design costs and bring a guaranteed hit to the park. A new version accomplishes neither and only really makes sense if it’s plopping Indy into the current ride.

I think enclosing the only part of the one ride in the entire park that’s not indoors would be a mistake. You are not a friend of shade.

It wouldn’t be anything like those other two examples… it would be startlingly backstage. Both in seeing the ugly shell of the hotel and walking through the back of the land.

The whole building is designed for people to never see outside of or set foot outside of. To change that would cost so many millions more. Then operationally it’d be expensive to provide transportation to all seven locations for just 100 groups of people. I wouldn’t be surprised if the plan is...

So what happens to this thing? It sits there empty and abandoned for 30 years until an elderly YouTube man says “join me, shall you?” and pops open the front door with his cane?

No worries at all. I don’t think the number of cast members really has much to do with the level of capital expenditure, or at least, I’m not understanding why you think this to be true.

I was simply pointing out how early the technology was, and how that lead to it being more expensive but also having more of a unique identity. Apologies if you read anything more into it.

Did I say it was?

No I didn’t mean to imply you would also think that.

That’s the price to pay for creating tap to pay before Apple. If they had done it a few years later, it would’ve probably cost half as much, but it might’ve also been watered down at lot. The whole magicband thing and the nice touchpoints with the light and sound are just really well done, and...

AK is not better with an empty plot of concrete instead of Primeval Whirl. That’s just ridiculous. That’s an opinion that only someone on a website like this would ever utter.