Personally, I fear that the whole idea of theme parks has reached something of a hurdle. Brainstorming is fun, and I have done it for Disney several times on these boards. Can anyone truly brainstorm a great new bunch of ideas for the theme park setting? For full new parks? For new attractions? For new parades/shows? And will that idea have a long life or only a short-term life? Will they "wow" the public long enough to pay for themselves?
Epcot was not an utterly unique idea. It followed the tried and true World's Fair concept of Tech and global enlightenment--a combination of futurism and world travel in one place. World's Fairs had been out of style for some time back in the early 80's, but Epcot was optimistically done anyway. It went against some trends, but it also was a natural expansion of the tried and true Magic Kingdom which was awash in visitors. It made good and obvious sense at most levels, and that was key to its development.
Studios followed because Universal was breathing down Disney's neck, and it was a successful theme park theme elsewhere. In many ways, it was also a no-brainer, but definitely had some overlap with the theming of MK already.
Animal Kingdom was also a no-brainer idea for an expansion because enhancing the zoo experience ala Busch Gardens and Sea World made sense. By far, Animal Kingdom is the best zoolike animal themed park out there, but it is not utterly unique.
What's next? Sports World? Maybe, but the no-brainer ideas for theme parks aren't as obvious as they once were.
I also think that investing in attractions presents a much shorter window for the return on investment these days. How much longer will Frozen be big? Yet the Frozen attraction is barely open. Will they recoup their costs? Luckily, the attraction wasn't a total new build, it was built on the skeleton of Maelstrom. When everything else at WDW was built, a long timeline for recoupment of costs was anticipated. Now, times change so fast that new isn't perceived as "new" for very long, thus scaring bigwigs into thinking that their multi-multi-million dollar investment won't pay off.
As for maintenance, I also agree that the bean counters are taking over a bit too much, and Expedition Everest is a prime example. Yeah, the Yeti has been on the blink, but the disappeared bird at the top, steam effects, and much else have been broken for a long time, and probably comparatively easy to fix. Too few bodies with wrenches and stepladders to keep up, and too few bodies with paintbrushes and brooms to keep it as sparkling.
Why? One must consider the general idea that CMs in the parks can't be outsourced. Today's economy tends toward outsourcing because it lowers costs. Three notable areas cannot do that, government services, health care and entertainment. You can't let people at a call center in New Delhi pick up the garbage, man the gates, or do the 100's of other jobs that are actually at the parks. People here and now do those jobs, and they require wages and a host of other benefits and costs to stay there. By comparison, the number of people needed onsite to keep WDW going is far higher per dollar of return than, for example, an insurance company or manufacturing plant where much of the old American work is now computerized and/or outsourced. Efficiencies in other areas of the economy cannot be significantly realized at WDW. Real people have to do them, and outsourcing and/or tech efficiencies at a theme park happen far more slowly than in other areas where most of us work. Yet what has been getting cut? Employees in government, Obamacare cuts in healthcare, and piddly wages for workers in entertainment.
Thus, expenses rise because onsite people are needed, and the only thing that can make a realistic cost savings is cutting the maintenance and development budget. Sad, but that may be the real underlying reason for maintenance cutbacks.
Yeah, pessimism that Walt might have shrugged off, but the above issues are indeed real, and perhaps contribute to the overall state of perceived decline, and thus the feeling of pessimism. One thing's certain, love him or hate him--Eisner was not a pessimist, and he wasn't overly cautious. He dramatically expanded the parks and enhanced the park experience. Now the expansion is where the new markets are--cruiselines and overseas parks. The markets are there for the taking PLUS both of these have cheaper workforces. Coincidence? I think not.
