A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Mike S]

A few weeks ago, there was a Spirited thread about "what's new at WDW this summer?" Some people in that thread mentioned that Universal isn't opening anything new this summer. A few short weeks later and we have the new Raptor Encounter open at IOA.

That's such a perfect example of the difference between these two companies.

If WDW was opening something equivalent to the Raptor Encounter, it would have been announced months ago. The press release would be hyping it as an incredible interactive experience that brings guests face-to-face with one of the deadliest dinosaurs from the Jurassic Park franchise. The official blog would have numerous posts with pictures, videos, Imagineer interviews, trivia tidbits, and the like.

Universal hardly says anything about it, and certainly didn't make a big to-do about announcing the project. There's something to be said about keeping expectations in check, not that WDW operates by that philosophy.

Can't blame Disney for that. With how little they do they have to hype anything to make it seem like they're doing something exciting. Case and point: Disney Springs.

Hm, I guess you can blame them.

 

[Travel Junkie]

No, that's the estimate for how many attempted to access the parks during the entire 24 hours. They had planned for 120,00 and got an estimated 175,000. That's what the Micechat account from a TDA suit alleges. (Monday morning damage control perhaps?)

The numbers in both parks at the same time appear to have peaked at 5PM on Friday afternoon, when there was 57,000 inside Disneyland and 24,000 inside DCA. 57 + 24 = 81,000 people inside the parks. But with ten thousand or more outside the gates waiting to get in, with the Santa Ana Freeway backing up for miles and the surface streets beginning to gridlock. No wonder they panicked and shut down the Esplanade.

I honestly don’t know why they didn’t expect more. MiceChat reported last year the Disneyland Resort had 122,000 people attend the rock your Disney side 24 hour event and they didn’t expect more people than that with all of the 60th offerings and heavily promoting the event? Several local TV and radio stations were either broadcasting live or had reports from Disneyland. It’s baffling that they expected to have the same number of people as last years event with everything that is going on.

 

[asianway]

Let's talk about demand based ticket pricing.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Let's talk about demand based ticket pricing.

Only if we can talk about having a reason to go.

 

[asianway]

Only if we can talk about having a reason to go.

Check yer buddy Bradley's RT. Based on your former life what do you think the selection criteria was? People wearing Olaf shirts leaving the MK at 5:55am Saturday to obtain the desired result?

 

[DisneyOutsider]

So did anyone happen to catch that the Disney owns the ESPN had one of its personalities defending josh Duggar earlier today?

I can't imagine Tony Kornheiser will have much of a future after that…

Tony is a local legend, and rightly so. He said something stupid without researching all of the pertinent information in this instance, but he'll be fine.

 

[TalkingHead]

Can't blame Disney for that. With how little they do they have to hype anything to make it seem like they're doing something exciting. Case and point: Disney Springs.

Hm, I guess you can blame them.

With the disappointing box office performance of Tomorrowland fresh in our minds, I can't help but wonder if Avatarland has been set up to suffer a similar fate.

It seems a lot of people agree that Tomorrowland (and Lone Ranger and John Carter) failed in part because of their publicity. The public didn't know what these movies were selling -- this seems to be the case especially with Tomorrowland.

Now, when you factor in that Avatarland will be opening 5 or 6(?) years after it was announced, this project seems like it has an even greater hill to climb for publicity. Since one of the few things that WDW is good at is creating hype, how do they create hype for this expansion?

Obviously, there are concerns about whether the public will continue to be interested in the IP -- that makes it harder to generate public enthusiasm. But beyond that, how do you successfully market the Soarin' over Pandora ride without making it sound like Soarin' Part 2? How do you convince the general public that they need to keep DAK in their vacation plans?

The Potter marketing was somewhat vague -- there were no on-ride videos of Gringotts or Forbidden Journey used to sell Diagon and Hogsmeade when they first opened. But you could argue that on-ride videos weren't necessary -- the lands themselves were the selling point. I'd love to know what the plan is for advertising Avatarland and whether it will make the same mistakes of recent Disney live-action movies.

How funny will it be if Avatarland opens with a similar thud? What if the park's attendance continues to be the same Disney diehards who go to WDW regularly and the same tourists who don't visit based on new offerings.

 

[OSUgirl77]

So did anyone happen to catch that the Disney owns the ESPN had one of its personalities defending josh Duggar earlier today?

I can't imagine Tony Kornheiser will have much of a future after that…

I don't think Tony will lose his job over what was said, at least he shouldn't. If you listen to the segment, he doesn't condone what Duggar did. He does, however, ask if he should lose his job over it considering it happened when he was a teenager, there were no charges and it doesn't appear that anything has occurred since. Tony is obviously misinformed, but I think he was just trying to have a broader conversation about whether someone should lose their job over something that happened years ago, not realizing that it would come across like he was defending a child molester.

 

[Kman101]

IMO the trailers for Tomorrowland did a horrible job promoting the movie. I think most of the trailers released in the states for Disney movies lack. It doesn't surprise me when one of their live action movies fail. I think that's a large part of it. I mean, I still remember Frozen's trailer with Sven and Olaf, or Kristoff, whoever, being ripped her and the trailer really had zero to do with the movie itself. It's odd. Their promotion sucks. They have no idea how to promote their movie and they get by because it's Disney and they're lucky Pixar/Marvel put out solid movies.

Again, they always seem just *shocked* their movie succeeded and did well. They have no faith in the product they put out and it shows.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I don't think Tony will lose his job over what was said, at least he shouldn't. If you listen to the segment, he doesn't condone what Duggar did. He does, however, ask if he should lose his job over it considering it happened when he was a teenager, there were no charges and it doesn't appear that anything has occurred since. Tony is obviously misinformed, but I think he was just trying to have a broader conversation about whether someone should lose their job over something that happened years ago, not realizing that it would come across like he was defending a child molester.

Maybe Tony should've realized what it was about before he opened his mouth on it…

 

[TP2000]

Let's talk about demand based ticket pricing.

Great point. I honestly think that has to happen at Disneyland. At least during a few months of the year.

Tokyo has a hybrid version of that pricing structure. But I think its a concept whose time has come, at least for some parks in some locations.

 

[PhotoDave219]

With the disappointing box office performance of Tomorrowland fresh in our minds, I can't help but wonder if Avatarland has been set up to suffer a similar fate.

It seems a lot of people agree that Tomorrowland (and Lone Ranger and John Carter) failed in part because of their publicity. The public didn't know what these movies were selling -- this seems to be the case especially with Tomorrowland.

Now, when you factor in that Avatarland will be opening 5 or 6(?) years after it was announced, this project seems like it has an even greater hill to climb for publicity. Since one of the few things that WDW is good at is creating hype, how do they create hype for this expansion?

Obviously, there are concerns about whether the public will continue to be interested in the IP -- that makes it harder to generate public enthusiasm. But beyond that, how do you successfully market the Soarin' over Pandora ride without making it sound like Soarin' Part 2? How do you convince the general public that they need to keep DAK in their vacation plans?

The Potter marketing was somewhat vague -- there were no on-ride videos of Gringotts or Forbidden Journey used to sell Diagon and Hogsmeade when they first opened. But you could argue that on-ride videos weren't necessary -- the lands themselves were the selling point. I'd love to know what the plan is for advertising Avatarland and whether it will make the same mistakes of recent Disney live-action movies.

How funny will it be if Avatarland opens with a similar thud? What if the park's attendance continues to be the same Disney diehards who go to WDW regularly and the same tourists who don't visit based on new offerings.

Well the three movies that you were for two just werent all that fantastic… Granted they weren't promoted heavily but the end product didn't work

 

[Mike S]

With the disappointing box office performance of Tomorrowland fresh in our minds, I can't help but wonder if Avatarland has been set up to suffer a similar fate.

It seems a lot of people agree that Tomorrowland (and Lone Ranger and John Carter) failed in part because of their publicity. The public didn't know what these movies were selling -- this seems to be the case especially with Tomorrowland.

Now, when you factor in that Avatarland will be opening 5 or 6(?) years after it was announced, this project seems like it has an even greater hill to climb for publicity. Since one of the few things that WDW is good at is creating hype, how do they create hype for this expansion?

Obviously, there are concerns about whether the public will continue to be interested in the IP -- that makes it harder to generate public enthusiasm. But beyond that, how do you successfully market the Soarin' over Pandora ride without making it sound like Soarin' Part 2? How do you convince the general public that they need to keep DAK in their vacation plans?

The Potter marketing was somewhat vague -- there were no on-ride videos of Gringotts or Forbidden Journey used to sell Diagon and Hogsmeade when they first opened. But you could argue that on-ride videos weren't necessary -- the lands themselves were the selling point. I'd love to know what the plan is for advertising Avatarland and whether it will make the same mistakes of recent Disney live-action movies.

How funny will it be if Avatarland opens with a similar thud? What if the park's attendance continues to be the same Disney diehards who go to WDW regularly and the same tourists who don't visit based on new offerings.

I don't think comparing the success of a movie to the success of an attraction is very accurate. Splash Mountain at 3 Disney resorts proves this and so does the Water World show at 3 Universal parks. If* Disney manages to create something worth seeing and riding, the fact it's based on Avatar won't mean a thing. This is the one thing I will defend because there is proof that it probably won't matter.

*big if

 

[Kman101]

I will add to my post above that I think they've done a good job with the Inside Out trailers and they're absolutely promoting Star Wars but overall, I think their trailers suck and do a terrible job at expressing what the movie will be. Tomorrowland looked like a mess, as if it wanted to be a bunch of things and really didn't succeed at any of them. It's a shame. I wanted that movie to do well and bring forth a new Tomorrowland at the parks, although that was probably a pipe dream to begin with.

 

[Kman101]

I don't think comparing the success of a movie to the success of an attraction is very accurate, Splash Mountain at 3 Disney resorts proves this and so does the Water World show at 3 Universal parks. If* Disney manages to create something worth seeing and riding, the fact it's based on Avatar won't mean a thing. This is the one thing I will defend because there is proof that it probably won't matter.

*big if

Exactly. I don't think those that truly disliked the plot of the movie can separate the land and rides. Most agree that the visuals in the movie were great and the land itself presented is likely worth a visit. Just because you don't like the movie doesn't mean the land and rides will suck.

 

[Mike S]

I will add to my post above that I think they've done a good job with the Inside Out trailers and they're absolutely promoting Star Wars but overall, I think their trailers suck and do a terrible job at expressing what the movie will be. Tomorrowland looked like a mess, as if it wanted to be a bunch of things and really didn't succeed at any of them. It's a shame. I wanted that movie to do well and bring forth a new Tomorrowland at the parks, although that was probably a pipe dream to begin with.

I think we all did.

 

[Progress.City]

With the disappointing box office performance of Tomorrowland fresh in our minds, I can't help but wonder if Avatarland has been set up to suffer a similar fate.

It seems a lot of people agree that Tomorrowland (and Lone Ranger and John Carter) failed in part because of their publicity. The public didn't know what these movies were selling -- this seems to be the case especially with Tomorrowland.

Now, when you factor in that Avatarland will be opening 5 or 6(?) years after it was announced, this project seems like it has an even greater hill to climb for publicity. Since one of the few things that WDW is good at is creating hype, how do they create hype for this expansion?

Obviously, there are concerns about whether the public will continue to be interested in the IP -- that makes it harder to generate public enthusiasm. But beyond that, how do you successfully market the Soarin' over Pandora ride without making it sound like Soarin' Part 2? How do you convince the general public that they need to keep DAK in their vacation plans?

The Potter marketing was somewhat vague -- there were no on-ride videos of Gringotts or Forbidden Journey used to sell Diagon and Hogsmeade when they first opened. But you could argue that on-ride videos weren't necessary -- the lands themselves were the selling point. I'd love to know what the plan is for advertising Avatarland and whether it will make the same mistakes of recent Disney live-action movies.

How funny will it be if Avatarland opens with a similar thud? What if the park's attendance continues to be the same Disney diehards who go to WDW regularly and the same tourists who don't visit based on new offerings.

I just read your post to my sister and she totally agrees with all your points. However, I feel that Avatarland will be a major success simply because of James Cameron's involvement but sister disagrees with me saying "how would the public know he is involved."

 

[DisneyOutsider]

IMO the trailers for Tomorrowland did a horrible job promoting the movie. I think most of the trailers released in the states for Disney movies lack. It doesn't surprise me when one of their live action movies fail. I think that's a large part of it. I mean, I still remember Frozen's trailer with Sven and Olaf, or Kristoff, whoever, being ripped her and the trailer really had zero to do with the movie itself. It's odd. Their promotion sucks. They have no idea how to promote their movie and they get by because it's Disney and they're lucky Pixar/Marvel put out solid movies.

Again, they always seem just *shocked* their movie succeeded and did well. They have no faith in the product they put out and it shows.

I actually appreciate when they can make a trailer that isn't basically a cliff notes of what happens in the movie. To me the perfect trailer is able to generate my interest without revealing the prevailing themes/plots of the movie. That was one thing I really appreciated about Frozen.

I HATE the typical comedy trailer today.. which is "let's show all of the jokes and take you step by step through the entire plot so they understand how funny it is!"

 

[Kman101]

I actually appreciate when they can make a trailer that isn't basically a cliff notes of what happens in the movie. To me the perfect trailer is able to generate my interest without revealing the prevailing themes/plots of the movie. That was one thing I really appreciated about Frozen.

I HATE the typical comedy trailer today.. which is "let's show all of the jokes and take you step by step through the entire plot so they understand how funny it is!"

I see what you mean. And I agree about how many trailers give away everything in the movie and give away anything funny. I just found the Tomorrowland trailer to be nothing that would get me interested. I think they did a poor job.

 

[TalkingHead]

I don't think comparing the success of a movie to the success of an attraction is very accurate, Splash Mountain at 3 Disney resorts proves this and so does the Water World show at 3 Universal parks. If* Disney manages to create something worth seeing and riding, the fact it's based on Avatar won't mean a thing. This is the one thing I will defend because there is proof that it probably won't matter.

*big if

I'm not really questioning the "quality" of Avatarland, but rather how it's going to be promoted and whether that promotion will inflate WDW's numbers. More and more, I'm convinced that WDW guests are some combination of 1.) families with young children who go as a rite of passage, 2.) red-state folks who go because it's a "safe" environment and a "special" experience, and 3.) Disney diehards who are addicted.

I'm curious how you market Avatarland to the masses if that's your customer base. Many of the Disney fans online made it a point to see Tomorrowland last weekend. I'm merely suggesting it would be funny if Avatarland is as irresistible to the same fan base and not many others.