A Spirited Dirty Dozen ...

[the.dreamfinder]

Nearmap has updated the aerial imagery for Disneyland in Anaheim; Star Wars Experience constructing included.
Before

After

Was it really worth it?

Thanks to @Blog_Mickey for pointing these out.

 

[RoysCabin]

Wow, that...doesn't look good.

I mean, of course it's mid-construction, so anything can happen, but that's really got the potential to mess up a lot about that section of the park.

 

[Cesar R M]

Oh My! $500 million??? That is substantial. I wonder if it means more area, more attractions, or more detailed theming over several parks or concentrated on only one or two. Time will tell. I don't know if that means the announcement is closer but one can hope.

lets just hope they dont pull a Disney and gives us a "NFL" type expansion.

 

[Cesar R M]

Nearmap has updated the aerial imagery for Disneyland in Anaheim; Star Wars Experience constructing included.
Before
View attachment 151172
After
View attachment 151173
Was it really worth it?

Thanks to @Blog_Mickey for pointing these out.

RIP Rivers...

 

[Phil12]

Now that Phil Holmes is there, he'll whip things into shape.

 

[NobodyElse]

RIP Rivers...

Rivers of America will survive. (And the rumors of Tom Sawyer Island being "cut in half" were greatly exaggerated.)

 

[MUTZIE77]

Nearmap has updated the aerial imagery for Disneyland in Anaheim; Star Wars Experience constructing included.
Before
View attachment 151172
After
View attachment 151173
Was it really worth it?

Thanks to @Blog_Mickey for pointing these out.

Imagine what old school WDI could have done with that space. Part of the charm of Walt's park is the creativity used in making everything fit. Now you get a 14 acre Land with only 2 attractions.

 

[Mike S]

Imagine what old school WDI could have done with that space. Part of the charm of Walt's park is the creativity used in making everything fit. Now you get a 14 acre Land with only 2 attractions.

From the one day I've spent in the park so far if I could describe it in one word it would be cozy. This huge land that seems to dwarf everything around it spits in the face of that.

 

[COProgressFan]

Imagine what old school WDI could have done with that space. Part of the charm of Walt's park is the creativity used in making everything fit. Now you get a 14 acre Land with only 2 attractions.

That's what I thought. You're using a massive piece of land like that for 2 attractions? I was sort of ambivalent about this whole project at DL, but as I've seen the actual size and scope of what their doing, it just doesn't seem like it fits properly into DL. To have such a huge swath of Disneyland dedicated to one intellectual property just isn't sitting well with me.

 

[ford91exploder]

Now that Phil Holmes is there, he'll whip things into shape.

Imagine all the wasteful details and excess capacity he can eliminate... Phil will show Disneyland how to be PROFITABLE!

 

[Animaniac93-98]

We often discuss box office returns on movies, but I thought it would be interersting to compare production budgets between recent Pixar and Illumination Studios titles:

Despicable Me 2: $76 million
Minions: $74 million
The Secret Life of Pets: $75 million

Cars 2: $200 million
Brave: $185 million
Inside Out: $175 million

Box Office Mojo doesn't have figures for The Good Dinosaur, Monsters University or Finding Dory, but it's probably safe to say they are similar to the ones quoted above.

The main problem with an all-tentpole release strategy is that these films cost so much to make and market that it becomes that much more difficut to turn a profit (and even when you hit a billion, the margins are no where near as good as smaller scale films). This is something we all know, but I have to ask why does it cost Pixar an extra $100+ million to make these movies? Where does that money go? The six movies shown above are all CGI productions of a similar length, but is the quality (in terms of voice talent or production staff) double that of Illumination? I know Hollywood accounting is notoriously iffy, but the gap between the two is certainly interesting to look at.

 

[Mike S]

We often discuss box office returns on movies, but I thought it would be interersting to compare production budgets between recent Pixar and Illumination Studios titles:

Despicable Me 2: $76 million
Minions: $74 million
The Secret Life of Pets: $75 million

Cars 2: $200 million
Brave: $185 million
Inside Out: $175 million

Box Office Mojo doesn't have figures for The Good Dinosaur, Monsters University or Finding Dory, but it's probably safe to say they are similar to the ones quoted above.

The main problem with an all-tentpole release strategy is that these films cost so much to make and market that it becomes that much more difficut to turn a profit (and even when you hit a billion, the margins are no where near as good as smaller scale films). This is something we all know, but I have to ask why does it cost Pixar an extra $100+ million to make these movies? Where does that money go? The six movies shown above are all CGI productions of a similar length, but is the quality (in terms of voice talent or production staff) double that of Illumination? I know Hollywood accounting is notoriously iffy, but the gap between the two is certainly interesting to look at.

The quality of the CGI itself is what's telling for me. There's a very obvious difference between a WDAS/Pixar film and Illumination.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

The quality of the CGI itself is what's telling for me. There's a very obvious difference between a WDAS/Pixar film and Illumination.

Pixar looks more polished, but it's harder to judge for me because they style of the two studios is so different (same with Dreamworks).

Are the shorts that accompany each movie folded into the main title's budget?

 

[Yellow Strap]

Pixar looks more polished, but it's harder to judge for me because they style of the two studios is so different (same with Dreamworks).

Are the shorts that accompany each movie folded into the main title's budget?

No they are not.
The budget's are inlfated due to, as many pointed out, the quality of animation. Pixar's process of more intensive and requires more manpower and PC power, if you will. The Pixar process does call for rendering and "reshoots" when things are not working. Most animation studios do not do that.
Also Pixar's production timeline is longer by at least a one year and a half.

 

[Flippin'Flounder]

The quality of the CGI itself is what's telling for me. There's a very obvious difference between a WDAS/Pixar film and Illumination.

I think Illumination's quality fits their films though, so I don't really mind. Illumination films tend to be less serious than Pixar/WDAS.

 

[michmousefan]

Was it really worth it?

I agree that it looks like a vast wasteland now, but I don't think you will truly be able to answer that question for a couple of years until all is said and done.

 

[BrianLo]

Was it really worth it?

My opinion is a 100% yes. Of course I don't lament 13.5% of the ROA for Mickey and Friend parking garage views, and a petting zoo/BBQ.

Nor am I a fan of backstage. I know it's not the popular opinion around these parts.

I am always sad for mature trees, but they'll be back and there are supposed to be a major net gain.

Imagine what old school WDI could have done with that space. Part of the charm of Walt's park is the creativity used in making everything fit. Now you get a 14 acre Land with only 2 attractions.

This begs a serious question, does Disneyland (and Star Wars) actually need 4-8 B/C tickets, in lieu of two E+'s. That's the trade off and the difference between a Fantsyland and a Adventureland. This is much more of an Adventureland with two attractions (Indy and Jungle cruise) eating up a ton of real estate. Or a NoS Square with even bigger E tickets and an even bigger village.

DHS is a totally different beast entirely and lacks attractions, but DL lacks space and was not built to handle crowds. SWL is being built to handle crowds... For better or worse. I realize that drastically goes against the design principles of Disneyland (it wasn't purposely designed to not handle crowds, but it was never designed with the intent that there would be 20 million visitors a year.) Unlike what some people are preaching, Disneyland itself isn't actually going anywhere or seriously changing. It's just getting the same gate within a gate that Universal has embraced with Potter.

 

[doctornick]

Imagine what old school WDI could have done with that space. Part of the charm of Walt's park is the creativity used in making everything fit. Now you get a 14 acre Land with only 2 attractions.

While that's true (though there may be other non-ride attractions in that 14 acres), it's important to note that the 14 acres is not all of that cleared land on the map. Obviously, part of that land will be for the top part of the RoA as well as the new railroad path and berm. but also, some of the cleared land is earmarked to be used for Fantasyland when Toontown gets converted to a Fantasyland expansion for DL. It's rumored that a Frozen ride will be build on the easternmost part of that cleared land.

 

[BrianLo]

We often discuss box office returns on movies, but I thought it would be interersting to compare production budgets between recent Pixar and Illumination Studios titles:

Despicable Me 2: $76 million
Minions: $74 million
The Secret Life of Pets: $75 million

Cars 2: $200 million
Brave: $185 million
Inside Out: $175 million

Box Office Mojo doesn't have figures for The Good Dinosaur, Monsters University or Finding Dory, but it's probably safe to say they are similar to the ones quoted above.

The main problem with an all-tentpole release strategy is that these films cost so much to make and market that it becomes that much more difficut to turn a profit (and even when you hit a billion, the margins are no where near as good as smaller scale films). This is something we all know, but I have to ask why does it cost Pixar an extra $100+ million to make these movies? Where does that money go? The six movies shown above are all CGI productions of a similar length, but is the quality (in terms of voice talent or production staff) double that of Illumination? I know Hollywood accounting is notoriously iffy, but the gap between the two is certainly interesting to look at.

I noticed this too. I think it comes down a bit to having legacy and the Pixar culture. Rightfully or not Pixar has been at it a lot longer and given a formula that consistently works. A lot of money is being pumped back into the company, the founders and into the culture of the place for their overly expensive creative process.

They are more expensive, but they earned a right to be in a sense.

Illumination is probably going to quickly close the gap as they establish themselves.

On the other hand the budgets do not account for marketing. Secret Life of Pets easily has had the biggest marketing budget of any of the above. It's ridiculous how long and hard they've been marketing that film. They knew they had a winner though (unlike Sing....).

The tent pole strategy is only viable if you can prove that you can hit big nearly every time. Live action works inconsistently, but 200 million thrown at animation gets you a 10 year development process and hundreds of small to large rewrites, producing a finely polished film almost every time. It also seems to be the one arena that holds a certain brand trust around consumers. Consumers only have brand loyalty with IP on the live action side these days; they no longer show up for the actors, directors or the studio, like once was common.

 

[doctornick]

We often discuss box office returns on movies, but I thought it would be interersting to compare production budgets between recent Pixar and Illumination Studios titles:

I do agree that Disney animation seems to have crazy huge budgets. Seems like they should be able to trim that at least somewhat without compromising the quality of their films. Gotta think there is some unnecessary bloat somewhere. That said....

No they are not.
The budget's are inlfated due to, as many pointed out, the quality of animation. Pixar's process of more intensive and requires more manpower and PC power, if you will. The Pixar process does call for rendering and "reshoots" when things are not working. Most animation studios do not do that.
Also Pixar's production timeline is longer by at least a one year and a half.

There is a clear difference IMHO between the quality of Pixar/WDAS and Illumination/Dreamworks -- not only with the animation itself, but the overall movie production (how much man hours was really used to come up with the story for Minions?). To maintain their standards, I'd have to imagine that Disney would need to have a budget somewhat higher than what we see with other animation studios.

I guess I'm wondering if Disney could trim costs to more like $120-150M, which seems plausible without dramatically impacting quality.