News Disney and Miral Announce New Seventh Theme Park Planned for Abu Dhabi

[lazyboy97o]

Universal pre-Bejjing was going to build a park in SK. Wonder if they made the wrong call in the years since.

Like Japan (originally), Singapore, Dubailand and Moscow, the various iterations of the Korea park would have been licensing deals. Comcast bought Orlando and Japan because ownership generally offers greater profit potential.

 

[Comped]

This is fair pushback - but yeah, there’s no perfect location. But I’ve worked in the industry at a fairly high level until recently, and this kind of global expansion conversation isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.

That’s why I’m surprised you’re dismissing the alternatives so quickly.

Canada, Iceland, and Puerto Rico all attract high-spending tourists and don’t come with the same geopolitical baggage. Puerto Rico especially has a giant coastal parcel (Roosevelt Roads) that’s just sitting there. It’s U.S. territory, natively bilingual, desperate to attract investment, and already a cruise port hub. That’s a huge combo. And Disney could build out their own infrastructure, just like they’ve done before.

Uruguay is the dark horse, but strategically it’s not a bad play. It’s politically stable, progressive, and would serve high-income tourists from Argentina, Chile, and Brazil - especially folks who can’t get U.S. visas or just want a closer, more accessible park. Same logic behind Hong Kong and Shanghai. And just like DLP never stopped UK tourists from flying to WDW, this wouldn’t hurt U.S. attendance.

Australia makes sense from a logistics standpoint - strong infrastructure, airlift, and a solid economy. Personally I think New Zealand would offer better creative potential, but it’s hard to beat Australia’s connectivity. Australia is extremely plausible - even if it’s not the most inspired creatively.

None of these ideas are flawless, but all of them come with fewer human rights headaches than opening a resort in the UAE. That’s really the heart of the critique.

With the number of proposed properties sitting in the Archives that I know of (mostly from Eisner's era), such discussions are not unreasonable. Universal has abandoned more announced full properties than Disney has (SK, Moscow, debatably PortAventura), and has explored many other unconventional options (malls owned by the Triple Five Group, among others). I am dismissing the alternatives because none of them make sense for Disney to put a full sized resort in. A regional entertainment property like Ron Miller was fond of developing, or at the largest something like what Universal is developing in Frisco, may work in some areas. But a full blown 7th resort is different.

• Canada is, notably, within roughly 3-5 hours of flight of either DL or WDW. It is Orlando's largest international tourist market. Also the entire state of Florida's. They put anything in Canada they are going to have a long battle locally here in Florida over the most minor of things, just so the governments can express their displeasure. And that assumes that Disney could even afford to build a park near a major Canadian metro area (as land on either side of the country is hilariously expensive), since public transit outside the major metros isn't ideal.
• Puerto Rico would be an unsuitable location for much of the year due to hurricane season. It's got some cruise ships sure, but it's a long (and for many expensive) fight from the mainland US, never mind elsewhere. You want to put something like what Australia is supposed to get, a bit of a port project? Sure. That'd make sense. But a full resort would never. Too small a local market, and far too poor. 35% of Florida's income means little to no room for annual passholders locally. And that's before the discussion of the weather, the issue with language (A majority of those in PR either only speak Spanish or dominantly do, instead of both English and Spanish), significant local corruption, and other issues.
• Iceland lacks the tourist infrastructure to handle the number of tourists who'd visit a new Disney park. Plus winter. And their local population would probably revolt at the idea of Disney getting a resort there.
• Uruguay makes more sense, but if Disney was going to go all in on Latin America it'd choose Brazil or Argentina where they have significantly better market penentration. Unlike DLP, I feel like it would hurt WDW attendance in particular if Disney built a park anywhere in SA. Brazilians would prefer the shorter flight, but would lose out on cheap electronics. Orlando would again try and push Disney into not developing it, because they and the state have a financial incentive to not have that kind of comeptition. Brazil is, I believe, top 3 or 5 for international tourists for Orlando (I forget which). It isn't a terrible idea, but logically would be unlikely due to canabalizing WDW too much.
• Hong Kong was first thought up long before the handover was officially confirmed, and Shanghai was a play with China (one pulled off wonderfully the other not so much). Way different than South America.
• Aus and NZ lose out for the same reasons Dick found out they did 30 years ago. Too small of a regional population unless you put it in Perth, where you can attract the SEA market. Even then, you put it on the other side of the continent from most of Australia's population. Too long/expensive of flights for most. The weather is better than Iceland/Canada, I will say, but it's simply too far out for a reasonable cachment area to support it. The best they'll get is a cruise port.
• Eisner and his execs had London and Madrid on option for EuroDisney besides Paris. They took London out of the running because it rained too much, and Madrid due to fears of a revival of fascism (and distance from the rest of Europe). I wish I was kidding. UK visitors never warmed to DLP because DLP was never properly invested in...

 

[Lilofan]

With the number of proposed properties sitting in the Archives that I know of (mostly from Eisner's era), such discussions are not unreasonable. Universal has abandoned more announced full properties than Disney has (SK, Moscow, debatably PortAventura), and has explored many other unconventional options (malls owned by the Triple Five Group, among others). I am dismissing the alternatives because none of them make sense for Disney to put a full sized resort in. A regional entertainment property like Ron Miller was fond of developing, or at the largest something like what Universal is developing in Frisco, may work in some areas. But a full blown 7th resort is different.

• Canada is, notably, within roughly 3-5 hours of flight of either DL or WDW. It is Orlando's largest international tourist market. Also the entire state of Florida's. They put anything in Canada they are going to have a long battle locally here in Florida over the most minor of things, just so the governments can express their displeasure. And that assumes that Disney could even afford to build a park near a major Canadian metro area (as land on either side of the country is hilariously expensive), since public transit outside the major metros isn't ideal.
• Puerto Rico would be an unsuitable location for much of the year due to hurricane season. It's got some cruise ships sure, but it's a long (and for many expensive) fight from the mainland US, never mind elsewhere. You want to put something like what Australia is supposed to get, a bit of a port project? Sure. That'd make sense. But a full resort would never. Too small a local market, and far too poor. 35% of Florida's income means little to no room for annual passholders locally. And that's before the discussion of the weather, the issue with language (A majority of those in PR either only speak Spanish or dominantly do, instead of both English and Spanish), significant local corruption, and other issues.
• Iceland lacks the tourist infrastructure to handle the number of tourists who'd visit a new Disney park. Plus winter. And their local population would probably revolt at the idea of Disney getting a resort there.
• Uruguay makes more sense, but if Disney was going to go all in on Latin America it'd choose Brazil or Argentina where they have significantly better market penentration. Unlike DLP, I feel like it would hurt WDW attendance in particular if Disney built a park anywhere in SA. Brazilians would prefer the shorter flight, but would lose out on cheap electronics. Orlando would again try and push Disney into not developing it, because they and the state have a financial incentive to not have that kind of comeptition. Brazil is, I believe, top 3 or 5 for international tourists for Orlando (I forget which). It isn't a terrible idea, but logically would be unlikely due to canabalizing WDW too much.
• Hong Kong was first thought up long before the handover was officially confirmed, and Shanghai was a play with China (one pulled off wonderfully the other not so much). Way different than South America.
• Aus and NZ lose out for the same reasons Dick found out they did 30 years ago. Too small of a regional population unless you put it in Perth, where you can attract the SEA market. Even then, you put it on the other side of the continent from most of Australia's population. Too long/expensive of flights for most. The weather is better than Iceland/Canada, I will say, but it's simply too far out for a reasonable cachment area to support it. The best they'll get is a cruise port.
• Eisner and his execs had London and Madrid on option for EuroDisney besides Paris. They took London out of the running because it rained too much, and Madrid due to fears of a revival of fascism (and distance from the rest of Europe). I wish I was kidding. UK visitors never warmed to DLP because DLP was never properly invested in...

Iceland is a safe and beautiful country to visit. The Blue Lagoon is an amazing place to chill out and visit minus the Icelandic food which is some of the most tasteless bland food of the world.

 

[Robbiem]

With the number of proposed properties sitting in the Archives that I know of (mostly from Eisner's era), such discussions are not unreasonable. Universal has abandoned more announced full properties than Disney has (SK, Moscow, debatably PortAventura), and has explored many other unconventional options (malls owned by the Triple Five Group, among others). I am dismissing the alternatives because none of them make sense for Disney to put a full sized resort in. A regional entertainment property like Ron Miller was fond of developing, or at the largest something like what Universal is developing in Frisco, may work in some areas. But a full blown 7th resort is different.

• Canada is, notably, within roughly 3-5 hours of flight of either DL or WDW. It is Orlando's largest international tourist market. Also the entire state of Florida's. They put anything in Canada they are going to have a long battle locally here in Florida over the most minor of things, just so the governments can express their displeasure. And that assumes that Disney could even afford to build a park near a major Canadian metro area (as land on either side of the country is hilariously expensive), since public transit outside the major metros isn't ideal.
• Puerto Rico would be an unsuitable location for much of the year due to hurricane season. It's got some cruise ships sure, but it's a long (and for many expensive) fight from the mainland US, never mind elsewhere. You want to put something like what Australia is supposed to get, a bit of a port project? Sure. That'd make sense. But a full resort would never. Too small a local market, and far too poor. 35% of Florida's income means little to no room for annual passholders locally. And that's before the discussion of the weather, the issue with language (A majority of those in PR either only speak Spanish or dominantly do, instead of both English and Spanish), significant local corruption, and other issues.
• Iceland lacks the tourist infrastructure to handle the number of tourists who'd visit a new Disney park. Plus winter. And their local population would probably revolt at the idea of Disney getting a resort there.
• Uruguay makes more sense, but if Disney was going to go all in on Latin America it'd choose Brazil or Argentina where they have significantly better market penentration. Unlike DLP, I feel like it would hurt WDW attendance in particular if Disney built a park anywhere in SA. Brazilians would prefer the shorter flight, but would lose out on cheap electronics. Orlando would again try and push Disney into not developing it, because they and the state have a financial incentive to not have that kind of comeptition. Brazil is, I believe, top 3 or 5 for international tourists for Orlando (I forget which). It isn't a terrible idea, but logically would be unlikely due to canabalizing WDW too much.
• Hong Kong was first thought up long before the handover was officially confirmed, and Shanghai was a play with China (one pulled off wonderfully the other not so much). Way different than South America.
• Aus and NZ lose out for the same reasons Dick found out they did 30 years ago. Too small of a regional population unless you put it in Perth, where you can attract the SEA market. Even then, you put it on the other side of the continent from most of Australia's population. Too long/expensive of flights for most. The weather is better than Iceland/Canada, I will say, but it's simply too far out for a reasonable cachment area to support it. The best they'll get is a cruise port.
• Eisner and his execs had London and Madrid on option for EuroDisney besides Paris. They took London out of the running because it rained too much, and Madrid due to fears of a revival of fascism (and distance from the rest of Europe). I wish I was kidding. UK visitors never warmed to DLP because DLP was never properly invested in...

Euro Disney was very expensive when it opened. It was cheaper from the UK to go to Florida for two weeks rather than a few days in France. Disney just picked the wrong country in Europe- the French didn’t really want the resort but what they really didn’t want was it being built in another country

 

[NotCalledBob]

Is this a common thing that people do? I haven't personally take a multi-night layover to break up a long trip, but I could see the appeal.

I've just booked a trip with a few nights layover in Singapore, and have booked the Disney Adventure.

 

[Lilofan]

I've just booked a trip with a few nights layover in Singapore, and have booked the Disney Adventure.

Singapore is a premier foodie destination even on the cheap . The food is hot and the weather is even hotter.

 

[Comped]

Euro Disney was very expensive when it opened. It was cheaper from the UK to go to Florida for two weeks rather than a few days in France. Disney just picked the wrong country in Europe- the French didn’t really want the resort but what they really didn’t want was it being built in another country

The French government may, depending on who you asked who was involved in the early days of EuroDisney, not been forthcoming about the issues Disney would have with labour in particular... Which still haunt the resort to this day (that, and a contract which forces new parks once the place meets benchmarks). (For his part, a friend of Iger's once told me that he would have built the resort in the Netherlands or Belgium.)

 

[Robbiem]

The French government may, depending on who you asked who was involved in the early days of EuroDisney, not been forthcoming about the issues Disney would have with labour in particular... Which still haunt the resort to this day (that, and a contract which forces new parks once the place meets benchmarks). (For his part, a friend of Iger's once told me that he would have built the resort in the Netherlands or Belgium.)

To have a full resort and not a day park it really needs to be in southern Europe where the weather is better. Spain and Portugal would be the obvious choices

 

[MisterPenguin]

I'm sure there are a lot of places around the world that Disney would happily build a new park.

If someone else was spending the $10B to build it.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I'm sure there are a lot of places around the world that Disney would happily build a new park.

If someone else was spending the $10B to build it.

I agree, it’s been interesting reading the pros and cons of other cities but I think if we were having the same conversation a year ago and someone suggested Abu Dhabi most people would have argued against it… bad climate, small population, some social issues, etc.

The reality is they have deep pockets and are willing to pay for it, that’s why Disney is building a park there.

 

[Rush]

It's not that simple. Abu Dhabi's probably the last qualified geographical area left for Disney to tap into. EMEAI is a developing region with an already established rich, and an emerging middle class. UAE is at the center of it, and a hot spot for tourists from the Arab World, the rest of MENA, India and Russia. In addition, the Emirates has invested heavily into it's aviation industry, and creating an attractive layover is part of it all. Miral footing the bill is simply an additional plus.

 

[JaKnight]

I've been watching videos of the dark rides at Warner Bros Abu Dhabi and they're simply terrible. They're basically rides through static sets, with a few animatronics with simple movements and some screens. I also find it curious that all of their attractions feature the DC Comics heroes in their New 52 versions — a much-criticized take that stopped being used around, what, 10 years ago? It would make more sense to use the more iconic standard versions, in my opinion. Warner Bros Movie World in Madrid is also quite disappointing in many ways. I wonder if Warner Bros doesn't enforce strict control over the use of its IPs the way Disney or Universal do. Disney really has an easy path to stand out with a massive difference in quality in the area.

 

[Rush]

Warner Bros World Abu Dhabi is a great park, even if some of the rides are a tier or two below Disney and Universal standards. The Harry Potter expansion and the rumored DC additions will keep it a must visit, even after Disneyland opens.

 

[osian]

I was in Dubai and Abu Dhabi with the ECC in March 2017. I was swayed by the bragging rights of riding the world's fastest coaster, but I'm over chasing record breakers now and I won't be going there again. We visited Legoland, Bollywood, Motiongate, IMG, Ferrari World, some malls with rides, Global Village and the Burj Khalifa.

I agree that the rides in these places were very much meh. There was amazing theming everywhere but the dark rides especially were underwhelming. I remember the Dinosaur/Indian Jones lookalike in IMG (The Forbidden Territory I think it was called), and it just felt cheap. Overall impressions of the place at that time were extremely hot and empty parks.

 

[mkt]

I wonder if Warner Bros doesn't enforce strict control over the use of its IPs the way Disney or Universal do.

At least with Wizarding World, they’re absolutely pedantic to deal with.

 

[Lilofan]

It's not that simple. Abu Dhabi's probably the last qualified geographical area left for Disney to tap into. EMEAI is a developing region with an already established rich, and an emerging middle class. UAE is at the center of it, and a hot spot for tourists from the Arab World, the rest of MENA, India and Russia. In addition, the Emirates has invested heavily into it's aviation industry, and creating an attractive layover is part of it all. Miral footing the bill is simply an additional plus.

Who knows if you hob with the oil sheik billionaires you just might get a nice gift in return !

 

[osian]

BTW having slagged off the dark rides, I must point out that some of the POVs you see aren't really representative and the rides may actually be better than they look in YT videos. In a lot of them, you can see the warehouse the rides are in, the infrastructure on the ceiling, the walls, the supporting arms etc and it looks like what exactly they are, artificial sets in a warehouse. But they are filmed with low light cameras. You can't actually see all those details in real life.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I've been watching videos of the dark rides at Warner Bros Abu Dhabi and they're simply terrible. They're basically rides through static sets, with a few animatronics with simple movements and some screens. I also find it curious that all of their attractions feature the DC Comics heroes in their New 52 versions — a much-criticized take that stopped being used around, what, 10 years ago? It would make more sense to use the more iconic standard versions, in my opinion. Warner Bros Movie World in Madrid is also quite disappointing in many ways. I wonder if Warner Bros doesn't enforce strict control over the use of its IPs the way Disney or Universal do. Disney really has an easy path to stand out with a massive difference in quality in the area.

Have you not seen a Six Flags park? Warner Bros. World was a $1 billion park. It’s not a comparable scope and scale.

 

[Go_Bears_80]

That’s clearly autocorrect. He meant “buy wee tykes.”

He meant "but wee tykes" as in, "when we were but wee tykes".

 

[Comped]

I've been watching videos of the dark rides at Warner Bros Abu Dhabi and they're simply terrible. They're basically rides through static sets, with a few animatronics with simple movements and some screens.

I would hope WDI will do better on the dark rides, but who knows... TBA gives me little hope except to say that those AAs are better than WB's by far.