A lower attendance future for WDW?

[havoc315]

The only actual additions I can think of this century are Expedition Everest, Tron, and Ratatouille. That's off the top of my head, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm forgetting something. Everything else was some sort of replacement rather than a completely new build in a previously unused area.

To be fair, some of them were replacements for areas that no longer served a purpose. Although I think the original Backlot Studio Tour was 1000x better than anything in Toy Story Land, that whole area was essentially obsolete once they stopped using the studios for actual animation and filming. I also don't think anyone wishes Camp Minnie-Mickey was still there instead of Pandora.

My understanding was that Camp Minnie-Mickey was essentially a placeholder when the original Animal Kingdom build was scaled back. So I would not consider Pandora a "replacement" -- it was new and expansion.

Similarly, I would consider the DHS Star Wars expansion as a new expansion, it merely replaced the stunt show.

On the other hand, the Backlot Studio Tour and The Great Movie Ride were both formerly core DHS attractions that were "replaced" by Toy Story Land and Runaway Railroad.

Fantasyland Expansion was an actual expansion.... Yes, Snow White's Scary Adventures closed, but a whole lot more opened: The Mine Train, Under the Sea, Fairytale Hall, Pete's Silly Sideshow, Enchanted Tales With Belle.

So unfair to say there have been no "additions" this century. I'd say there have been quite a few--- except in Epcot, until the new France expansion opens.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Fantasyland Expansion was an actual expansion.... Yes, Snow White's Scary Adventures closed, but a whole lot more opened: The Mine Train, Under the Sea, Fairytale Hall, Pete's Silly Sideshow, Enchanted Tales With Belle.

Mine Train replaced the subs as a “major” attraction and Mermaid replaced Snow White as a princess dark ride.

Everything else you mentioned is a meet and greet. I’m fine with counting enchanted tales as an “attraction” if you really insist.

Similarly, I would consider the DHS Star Wars expansion as a new expansion, it merely replaced the stunt show.

Star Wars and Toy Story Land tookover the backlot tram tour, honey I shrunk the kids, LMA Stunt Show, and a theatre as well as the entire streets of America.

We also lost the animation “attraction” to a Star Wars gift shop and meet and greet that is somehow still necessary because a billion dollar land can’t include the most popular characters in the franchise because of a made up timeline.

Honestly I liked Studios better the way it was but nobody asked me. Maybe slinky could have loaded up near midway mania launched over the tram tour and into a new show building? Plop Rise down next to star tours and Mickey’s ride as a new build somewhere and NOW we are talking about a nice park!

 

[havoc315]

Mine Train replaced the subs as a “major” attraction and Mermaid replaced Snow White as a princess dark ride.

The subs closed in 1994. Mine Train opened in 2014. Considering the 20 year gap, don't think you can call it a replacement.

Everything else you mentioned is a meet and greet. I’m fine with counting enchanted tales as an “attraction” if you really insist.


Star Wars and Toy Story Land tookover the backlot tram tour, honey I shrunk the kids, LMA Stunt Show, and a theatre as well as the entire streets of America.

But the Streets of America weren't an attraction. I did forget all about the Honey I Shrunk the Kids.. though that was more a playground than an attraction.

We also lost the animation “attraction” to a Star Wars gift shop and meet and greet that is somehow still necessary because a billion dollar land can’t include the most popular characters in the franchise because of a made up timeline.

Honestly I liked Studios better the way it was but nobody asked me. Maybe slinky could have loaded up near midway mania launched over the tram tour and into a new show building? Plop Rise down next to star tours and Mickey’s ride as a new build somewhere and NOW we are talking about a nice park!

Eh. It's different. I liked the backlot tour. I wish Great Movie Ride was updated instead of being replaced.

I definitely prefer the ideal of DHS being devoted to glorification of "Hollywood" as opposed to the glorification of 2 Disney owned movie properties.

 

[UNCgolf]

My understanding was that Camp Minnie-Mickey was essentially a placeholder when the original Animal Kingdom build was scaled back. So I would not consider Pandora a "replacement" -- it was new and expansion.

Similarly, I would consider the DHS Star Wars expansion as a new expansion, it merely replaced the stunt show.

On the other hand, the Backlot Studio Tour and The Great Movie Ride were both formerly core DHS attractions that were "replaced" by Toy Story Land and Runaway Railroad.

Fantasyland Expansion was an actual expansion.... Yes, Snow White's Scary Adventures closed, but a whole lot more opened: The Mine Train, Under the Sea, Fairytale Hall, Pete's Silly Sideshow, Enchanted Tales With Belle.

So unfair to say there have been no "additions" this century. I'd say there have been quite a few--- except in Epcot, until the new France expansion opens.

I didn't say there were none. I also specifically said Pandora replacing Camp Minnie-Mickey is not something anyone is sad about (and it was definitely a placeholder). New Fantasyland and the circus area wasn't really an expansion because most of that land was previously in use (same thing with Galaxy's Edge).

Regardless, it's not an argument about the quality of replacements; it's the simple fact that WDW has enough land that they didn't need to resort to replacements. Just about everything they've built this century other than what I listed could have been added to what previously existed (DHS is an exception as I describe in the below post) instead of simply replacing it. If they'd done that, the parks wouldn't have such a capacity problem now.

 

[UNCgolf]

Honestly I liked Studios better the way it was but nobody asked me. Maybe slinky could have loaded up near midway mania launched over the tram tour and into a new show building? Plop Rise down next to star tours and Mickey’s ride as a new build somewhere and NOW we are talking about a nice park!

I did too; I prefer 1995 Disney-MGM to present day DHS. Or I guess you could go 2000 to get Rock N' Roller Coaster and Fantasmic, although I don't care about RNR at all.

As I said, though, once they stopped using it as an actual working studio changes were inevitable and probably necessary. There was no reason to have soundstage buildings etc. that were just going to sit empty, which would also eliminate a huge portion of the backlot tour. Although I wish the studio stayed open and thus nothing changed, I'm not really upset about it since it didn't make sense anymore without the studio. The issue is that they replaced a huge part of it with Toy Story Land which is just a waste of space. If they'd actually built something worthwhile there it'd be a different story.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I wanted to see seperate studios as the themes. Pixar, Lucas, Disney Animation, Muppets. There was so much potential.

 

[Bocabear]

Absolutely! There is no need to abandon the "Studio" theme entirely, just organize it around the different studios they own, all off of a central "Hollywood That Never Was" central corridor... Animation franchises on the right side of the park, Live Action on the left side of the park... Pixar Studios and Toontown to the Animation side, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Action Adventure to the left... It all made perfect sense...
It feels like they just keep replacing and tagging on stuff with no master plan ... Like what they are doing to EPCOT... Like no one has truly figured out where they are going....

 

[jt04]

I was big on the studios concept but have changed my mind. The park as the "Hollywood That Never Was... " works better.

Basically the park seems to function best as a fictional town rather than divided into themed lands. The town has portals that bring you into the movie magic in a sense. No specific reason they are where they are except the nature of the town built on the illusion that is movies.

This gives Imagineering the most creative leeway and allows them to add and remove concepts as they become less or more relevant.

Would be nice if they completed the left side of Sunset when facing the tower in the style of Hollywood Blvd and then add attractions back all the way to TSL. Could be Pixar or Toontown or many other franchises as long as they keep it as a 'town' rather than traditional lands of most theme parks.

 

[thomas998]

Not suggesting they would go towards such an extreme, but movie theaters and sports stadiums are also mass destinations yet we have seen them move towards smaller crowds.

In the end, of course they want to maximize their profits. That's capitalism, and that's how I expect them to behave. But if they can INCREASE profits by cutting attendance, then that's the path I would expect them to take.
Purely as demonstration... I'm sure that 100,000 on-site guests are more profitable to Disney over 60,000 on-site combined with 50,000 off-site. So under this demonstration -- if a change in policy pushed 40,000 people on-site, but eliminated 50,000 off-site -- The net attendance would fall by 10,000, but profitability would increase.

Your wrong in assuming theaters and stadiums are downsizing because they want fewer customers. Theaters are downsizing because the number of people that go to movies has been dropping, they put in luxury seating and serve food and alcohol to try and generate revenue that they can keep for the theater. Normally when a theater sells a ticket they have to give 70% to the studio and keep 30. But they dont have to share anything with the studio that they make off food and beverage.

As for baseball stadiums, the number of baseball fans has been dropping for years. So when you build a new stadium why would you build one with more seats than you can ever fill? You wouldnt but you also dont want to build a stadium that generates less revenue than the old one so your only option is to change the mix in cheap to luxury seats and then hope you can fill them all.

 

[aliceismad]

I like the idea of themed lands associated with movies at DHS. A central hub or front-of-park Hollywood area that feeds into individual movie worlds. A bunch of warehouses doesn't appeal to me as much. I'd prefer to feel like I'm "in the movie."

The Toy Story franchise launched Pixar into the powerhouse it is today, so to me, creating a TSL makes sense. I know the execution leaves something to be desired, but I like the idea of being a toy in Andy's backyard.

The Star Wars universe is perhaps the most famous in movie history. Having a SW land associated with a movie park makes sense to me.

The backlot tour was great, but it also gets to a point where things are outdated and take up a lot of real estate. I do wish they had kept The Great Movie Ride and updated it with a mix of classic movies or Disney history. I wish Mickey had his own land - a whole Toontown at DHS anchored by MMRR.

 

[havoc315]

Your wrong in assuming theaters and stadiums are downsizing because they want fewer customers.

I didn't say they "want" fewer customers. But they are focusing on growth through higher per capita spending.

Theaters are downsizing because the number of people that go to movies has been dropping, they put in luxury seating and serve food and alcohol to try and generate revenue that they can keep for the theater. Normally when a theater sells a ticket they have to give 70% to the studio and keep 30. But they dont have to share anything with the studio that they make off food and beverage.

Correct --- And that enforces what I'm saying. They will gladly "accept" (not "want") fewer customers if they can increase their per-customer profit thereby.

As for baseball stadiums, the number of baseball fans has been dropping for years. So when you build a new stadium why would you build one with more seats than you can ever fill?

Population continues to grow. You could fill almost every seat in a massive baseball stadium if you really wanted to -- Though you might end up giving away the tickets for $1 each. But they opted to go in the opposite direction.

You wouldnt but you also dont want to build a stadium that generates less revenue than the old one so your only option is to change the mix in cheap to luxury seats and then hope you can fill them all.

!!!!!! Exactly -- CHANGE the mix-up to increase revenue. Disney recognizes that their "normal" crowds are already bursting at the seams, they don't have the capacity to handle their own normal crowds. So to grow their revenue in the future, they are working to "change the mix" -- Fewer of the "cheap seats" and more people in the "luxury boxes" to stick to your analogy.

 

[havoc315]

I didn't say there were none. I also specifically said Pandora replacing Camp Minnie-Mickey is not something anyone is sad about (and it was definitely a placeholder). New Fantasyland and the circus area wasn't really an expansion because most of that land was previously in use (same thing with Galaxy's Edge).

Regardless, it's not an argument about the quality of replacements; it's the simple fact that WDW has enough land that they didn't need to resort to replacements. Just about everything they've built this century other than what I listed could have been added to what previously existed (DHS is an exception as I describe in the below post) instead of simply replacing it. If they'd done that, the parks wouldn't have such a capacity problem now.

ok, get what you're saying. IT would be true that WDW has not significantly expanded their park footprints over the last 20 years, re-using the same land.
But there have been some "new attractions" that expanded capacity. Just not nearly enough. Mine Train, Pandora, etc, were indeed new rides with new capacity.
Meanwhile, some of the "replacement" attractions actually had less capacity than what they were replacing.

DHS is a good example -- the Stunt Show, Great Movie Ride and Backlot tour were all high capacity.

 

[JoeCamel]

ok, get what you're saying. IT would be true that WDW has not significantly expanded their park footprints over the last 20 years, re-using the same land.
But there have been some "new attractions" that expanded capacity. Just not nearly enough. Mine Train, Pandora, etc, were indeed new rides with new capacity.
Meanwhile, some of the "replacement" attractions actually had less capacity than what they were replacing.

DHS is a good example -- the Stunt Show, Great Movie Ride and Backlot tour were all high capacity.

Backlot tour was high capacity?? 200 per train and a 35min ride?

 

[havoc315]

Backlot tour was high capacity?? 200 per train and a 35min ride?

They were running a lot of those trains.
And remember the benefit of a 35 minute ride -- That's keeping the guest off other lines for 35 minutes.

I can't find the hourly capacity listed but I recall it being on the higher side of things.

 

[JoeCamel]

They were running a lot of those trains.
And remember the benefit of a 35 minute ride -- That's keeping the guest off other lines for 35 minutes.

I can't find the hourly capacity listed but I recall it being on the higher side of things.

I can't find it either but I can't recall seeing more than a couple of extra trains around, they might have hit 1K an hour? maybe

 

[UNCgolf]

The original Backlot Tour was like 2 and a half hours long, I think.

 

[Minnesota disney fan]

I think you brought up luxurious $500 meals and the like. That's where we got into the weeds about Disney charging deluxe prices for experiences that aren't actually what would be considered deluxe elsewhere and whether that works as a longterm business strategy.

At any rate, sure, I agree that Disney would like to control attendance growth if not bring attendance down a little while getting those that do come to pay more. I think almost all of us here agree on that. Whether they can do that or are going about it the right way is the open question.

I agree. I think they are "throwing out the baby with the bath water". I, for one, won't pay more for what used to be "free", though hidden in the high prices anyway. It isn't all black and white. IE: The rich will continue to throw money at disney no matter what and the "low Income" people will just fade away. ROI is important to most people, and when the return is not there anymore? Well....
It's a dangerous precedent, to me, that they think only the wealthy will gladly flock to WDW all the time, and too bad for the other lower income guests. People like to get a good return for their money, and if that is diminishing, then why go? JMO.

 

[havoc315]

I can't find it either but I can't recall seeing more than a couple of extra trains around, they might have hit 1K an hour? maybe

It’s been a long time, but I believe they were running up to 4- trams at a time. Which would be about 2400 people every 2 hours. Not super high capacity but higher than some of the more recent attractions.

 

[thomas998]

I didn't say they "want" fewer customers. But they are focusing on growth through higher per capita spending.



Correct --- And that enforces what I'm saying. They will gladly "accept" (not "want") fewer customers if they can increase their per-customer profit thereby.



Population continues to grow. You could fill almost every seat in a massive baseball stadium if you really wanted to -- Though you might end up giving away the tickets for $1 each. But they opted to go in the opposite direction.


!!!!!! Exactly -- CHANGE the mix-up to increase revenue. Disney recognizes that their "normal" crowds are already bursting at the seams, they don't have the capacity to handle their own normal crowds. So to grow their revenue in the future, they are working to "change the mix" -- Fewer of the "cheap seats" and more people in the "luxury boxes" to stick to your analogy.

The problem is you assume that the lower attendance is something they expect to continue long term. No reason to expect that... After 9/11 attendance took a temporary hit, after the 2008 financial crisis attendance took a temporary hit... Why exactly is this virus going to be any different from past things that happened and caused a temporary hit? Granted this virus BS is going on longer than most expected, but it isn't going to last forever. At some point it will pass, or people will just live with it and move on down the road.

If Disney has a park that can hold 50,000 people then they are going to try and cram 50,000 in as often as they can. They may try to add on things to cater to the luxury visitor and it may cause a temporary drop in the common man visitor but that will never be the goal unless the luxury visitors were to all stand up and say we won't go anymore unless you keep the deplorable out... but there is no reason to expect that luxury visitors to do that when they can simply hire the Disney tour guides to waltz them around the park and avoid having to wait behind any deplorables.

Even if Disney drops a resort in ever country of EPCOT it won't result in them closing it down to the deplorables, it might result in the luxury visitors getting extra hours before and after the park opens for the riffraff but that's something Disney has been doing for years with their magic hours perk.

You put forth a claim that Disney was going to target lower attendance but higher paying visitors... I simply don't buy it.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I can't find it either but I can't recall seeing more than a couple of extra trains around, they might have hit 1K an hour? maybe

I would guess they dispatched every 10 minutes. That would be 1200 an hour so yeah around there.