If you are right on the cost of Pandora, someone could go to jail as their publicly stated costs are much less and the laws since the great recession require true disclosures. I think 600 million is more like the actual costs based on the financial statements. This is much different that the cost of next gen which could be split between all the divisions at WDW.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
A Spirited Valentine ...
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
Railroad makes more sense then cramming them into Dinosaur. Too much of a clash in aesthetics with what's already in Dinosaur.
Energy's Dinos are from the old school Fantasia/Zallinger days of paleoart, Dinosaur's are a much more modern "post-Jurassic Park" sort of mindset.
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
Since we don't have the Primeval World Diorama like Disneyland has left over from the World's Fair, maybe forget the Dinos since we have them at Animal Kingdom and do something totally unique that relates to the Magic Kingdom...Why not have the train travel through a giant Wonderland tableau since we don't actually have the Alice ride? Or a Neverland Diorama...Waterfalls, Mermaids, jungles and indians...Could be beauiful...LOTS of other choices other than the Dinos at Disneyland...
disneyC97
Well-Known Member
If it's like DL they'd be in an enclosed building around the track itself. They would not need to be waterproof.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Uhh no.
And how exactly are you going to extract the cost of Pandora out of the public financials that roll up global expenses across so many entities over nearly 6 years?
And define 'costs', when they can twist what is attributed to Pandora vs regular expenses vs shared... etc. What matters is the bottom line number accuracy.. and you'll never get an officer of the company to try to state the all inclusive spend on a theme park project that would be binding in anyway.
AKL2003
Well-Known Member
Good to know...i wasnt even sure where i had read that ....(I havent been to DL in years!!!)
RoysCabin
Well-Known Member
That has more to do with marketing budgets; given the modern movie landscape it's taken as a rule of thumb that a film needs to make back double its budget to be considered at least somewhat successful, as marketing has gone global and what have you, and some major tent pole films even get more pressure put on them. Batman v Superman, for example, I believe made somewhere north of $850 million worldwide...and was kind of considered a bust in the process, as WB was counting on it to break $1 billion and had built its marketing budget and what have you with that in mind.
No clue if that's the full thinking with Guardians 2, and I'm sure they're not super disappointed or anything, but it's possible that it's simply going to fall short of loftier goals that Disney had set for it.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
I'm curious if there is a proverbial stack of money allotted for the 50th and part of the reason there are so many rumors floating around is that different folks from WDI are trying to get different projects approved to use a share of those funds. It could be by leaking some plans, they might hope to have the interwebs all excited as a way to justify approving their pet project. Maybe?
Regardless, it's good to hear that is actually some sort of plan in place for the 50th. While it's perhaps absurd that things need to be determined so far in advance given the pace at which Disney builds, it's better to have them prepare ahead of time than scramble closer to that date.
bhg469
Well-Known Member
I didnt get to ride the train when I was at Disneyland, It seemed to be operating just at intermittent times of the day and unfortunately I kept missing it. Same with matterhorn. I did get to go on the Alice ride and WOW that was a charming dark ride. It was pretty long and the effects were pretty good especially the soldiers marching. I did very little research before my trip as to what attractions they had that wdw did not and I finally get why people are so pro Disneyland.
Don't take my word for it. I dont care but Disney has discussed costs with various financial entities and therefore would be in violation of the law if they reported incorrect information. Does that mean they can't hide some costs, no but they have to be very careful and could not hide 3 times what they publicly say. You should read many different financial websites and not based your views on one, especially this one which is not a financial website and full of incorrect information. However, if you look at all their financial reporting, there is no way they invested 1.5 billion into Pandora. If they did, they could not have invested 5.5 billion into Shanghai. The numbers would no add up. The most reported number in the press if 500 million, but I think it was possibly 600 million. A 100 million difference could be hidden but no way 1 billion. As for a site with more credibility that wdwmagic, try https://www.thestreet.com/slideshow...ese-5-amazing-new-theme-park-attractions.html or https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disneys-world-avatar-attraction-going-160316082.html
flynnibus
Premium Member
The point is the information isn't always Black and White. They could be factual in what they said, but not giving away everything they could.
When you say 'look at their financial reporting' - what categories are you looking at? That's the problem, not everything is a capital expense.. so how do you separate out all the OpEx being spent in developing projects from all the other noise and churn? You can't from the financial reports.. all you can do is look at the deltas.. which when the company is simultaneously NUMEROUS things (from Cruise lines, star wars, theme park development, and much much more) there is so much churn you can't really do anything from the consolidated reports except take note of the overall higher numbers.
The press numbers you cite aren't sourced at all, not even attesting them to Disney. Disney rarely talks numbers in this regard, they instead like to talk in terms of how the financials are reported.. in terms of increasing or decreasing the total buckets with justifications on why. The 500 number likely comes from Iger's initial announcement of the partnership. Which was a placeholder - not a fixed budget.
I have no idea what their totals are on Pandora or if the cited numbers are viable, but your retorts and claims are pretty much baseless and that's what I was responding too. The numbers can't be reasonable extracted from the consolidated financials.. and the wiggle room on statements vs actual you can drive cruise ships through.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
Could the $1.4 billion figure include all the projects (Harambe Theater, Harambe Market, Rivers of Light, Tiffins/Nomad Lounge, Discovery Island and Tree of Life refurbishments/enhancements) that have been done at AK since Pandora was announced?
@ParentsOf4 has consistently reported on Park and Resorts Capital spending and there is no way The Walt Disney Company could have spent 1 billion dollars extra on a capital program and hidden it. Yes, 100 million is possible maybe even with the most creative book keeping 200 but there is no way they can hide a billion dollars. Even the US government has a hard time hiding a billion dollars, otherwise we would never know of the over priced toilets. To believe they spent 1.5 billion on Pandora, you would have to believe that every financial investment company is stupid and incompetent.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Why would they need to be weatherproof? The Dino's on Disneyland railroad are entirely indoors.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Capital spending is not the only thing you spend developing a park attraction... (and if you think that.. shame on me for going this far..)
Disney outlined this as a partnership that initially was a 400 or 500 million dollar deal. You really think after 6 years Disney stayed on budget from their napkin deal?
Rodan75
Well-Known Member
At some point the conspiracy theory on spending is just too ridiculous to believe.
They have publically stated the green dollars for this land at $500B. i wouldn't doubt they spent more in blue/affiliate dollars, but to believe they had real costs at 1.4B is just ridiculous. What value do they get in lying? Hiding costs in OpEx is bad for the bottom line. And their cap spend is well documented.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
Ike Perlmutter is no longer in charge of Marvel, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/th...security-helped-solve-bizarre-mystery-1008074
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/th...security-helped-solve-bizarre-mystery-1008074