Are we being cheated?

[Terp02]

Originally posted by pheneix

>>>I'm thinking the worst case scenarios are going to happen (bankruptcy, corruption, selling the theme parks, making more horrible movies, being bought out). PLEASE DON'T LET THIS BE SO!<<<

Well, I have to break it to you, but Disney is spiralling downward so quickly that these are all very possible outcomes. But what I was alluding to wasn't that bad, although it will definitely destroy Disney's fanbase. On the balance sheet, the idea sounds perfect, but in reality it is a horrible, horrible idea. Stay tuned.

I wonder if you're talking about the Shanghai theme park:veryconfu .

Anyway, I would hope that if Disney ever becomes closer to bankruptcy that they would sell off ABC/Capital Cities as well as some of their other ventures. I now believe Eisner needs to go. His time is up and needs to vacate the CEO position. I really wish that their was a Disney running the company that way it'd still be "in the family". Well i'm just hoping something turns around the stock, and soon.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Originally posted by pheneix
>>>Whatever...you are just being stubborn.<<<

No, you are.

>>>Perhaps you should stop being so against the new Disney<<<

I will when they start making changes that aren't terrible.

>>>it is ever changing and most people like all the new attractions<<<

Yeah, right... I'll let DCA's attendance speak for itself.

>>>FYI: Parades are attractions at Disney World<<<

No, it's live entertainment that is rotated out on a regular basis. It is nothing like an attraction which is an investment for the long haul.

>>>I won't even go into the quality of Islands of Adventure, as this is the wrong forum for that--suffice it to say I hate the park.<<<

If the Disney name were slapped on it you would love it. I can see it now, "IOA is now the best theme park in Orlando. It is packed with Magic (All Rights Reserved) so much that I was overloaded by it all!"

>>>don't go on the "THEY WERE POPULAR" tangent...I saw the lines myself<<<

So Journey Into Imagination had a shorter line than HISTA. Did it ever occur to you that JII had a capacity that was at least 4 times that of the movie next door?

Your first comment is hypocritical, in response to your second comment, I say "stop going to disney world, then". To your third statement I will say that DCA has higher attendance than any Six Flags Park, to your fourth I ask do parades attract people? Then they are attractions. Live entertainment is an attraction at disney; they get lines like rides and they have Fastpass. Your next statement I will ignore, and as for the last...it's just wrong. You think an Omnimover ride that sends off groups of 20 guests every two minutes has a higher capacity than a show that seats 400 for a 12 minute show? Do the math. Journey would have to have an hourly capacity of 8000 guests for you to be right...hah. Rock 'n' Roller Coaster clocks in at about 1800 gph.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Originally posted by Terp02


I wonder if you're talking about the Shanghai theme park:veryconfu .

Anyway, I would hope that if Disney ever becomes closer to bankruptcy that they would sell off ABC/Capital Cities as well as some of their other ventures. I now believe Eisner needs to go. His time is up and needs to vacate the CEO position. I really wish that their was a Disney running the company that way it'd still be "in the family". Well i'm just hoping something turns around the stock, and soon.

Disney is not in danger of going bankrupt. Why can't you people understand that the economy SUCKS right now. We are lucky to have the construction projects we have right now. You all saw what just happened to MCI Worldcom...and the Dow was below its post-September 11th value last week. I think disney is doing remarkably well given the current economy. Too much pessimism toward the company...at least we haven't seen "DISNEY SCANDAL" on the headlines yet for "corporate practices"...and I know disney has been looked into...but I have yet to see anything like we have seen for all the other businesses going down the tubes. At least Disney stocks still have value...even if it is only $17.50/stock.

 

[Dawn S]

The prices have been extreme for quite some time now, but no more than all other theme parks, really. Everything here in Orlando is over $50 with tax included & other theme parks in other states all tend to be around $40 or so. Yeah, it's expensive. I often tell friends & family coming to Orlando to re-finance their home to afford it. :lol: It's ridiculous, but we all know about it before we go in. At least it's not a big surprise & the constant raises in ticket prices are at least somewhat slow & gradual.

 

[JLW11Hi]

Originally posted by pheneix
I really think they could have turned the networks into a valuable ally, ABC would have been wonderful for high quality programs like "Disneyland After Dark." But Disney has killed ABC, so it's all worthless now.

Remember the good ol days when Walt would host the Wonderful World of Disney (or whatever it was called at the time) each week? I have no idea when the show is on anymore! They had new, original shows each week, some of which Walt would host for a majority of the show. Great advertisement, and great entertainment at the same time. I know Eisner used to introduce the show in the early 90's, but I havent seen the show in such a long time that I dont know if he does anymore or not. It was Walt's cooperation in the old show that brought people closer to him, and in turn, closer to the company. And the shows were all great ( I still watch them time to time on Vault Disney ) I wish Eisner or someone would bring this practice back. The show doesn't have to have a movie every week, it can talk abotu stuff that the company is trying to do. Shed some light on Epcot on an episode, for instance, so visitors have some idea why there is a giant golf ball representing the park.

And to add to this, Disney has an entire channel to do this stuff (infact, has had one for quite a long time now) to do this stuff. With Walt's intrest in Television, he would have been all over this! Entire shows could be devoted to the parks, the movies, etc. Nowadays, the best I can find on this stuff on the Disney channel is those shorts during the commercials (Like with Tom Morrow and the Disney legends).

 

[pheneix]

>>>To your third statement I will say that DCA has higher attendance than any Six Flags Park<<<

Actually, Six Flags Great Adventure has a higher daily average than DCA, the difference is that SFGA does not operate year-round like DCA does.

>>>You think an Omnimover ride that sends off groups of 20 guests every two minutes has a higher capacity than a show that seats 400 for a 12 minute show?<<<

Yes, because the original JII sent trains off continuously. Your thinking of the new attraction, where the capacity has been slashed.

>>>Why can't you people understand that the economy SUCKS right now.<<<

And why can't you understand that Disney's problems are not due to the economy, but due to their OWN BUSINESS PRACTICES? I suppose you can blame ABC's horrific ratings on the economy?

>>>"DISNEY SCANDAL" on the headlines yet<<<

Key word: "Yet"

 

[Herbie53]

As far as ABC goes, they were on the way down when Disney bought them. It takes time to turn a network around, you can't fault Disney for it. In the long run, I'm sure it will be a sound investement. There are three major networks in this country, and I don't think we will ever see a day when there are only two.

Maybe I'm just too optimistic, but I don't buy into all the doom and gloom scenarios.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

I hate to agree with Pheneix...because he does come across as being a Disney hater...but some things he says is true.

About IoA...it IS a great park...granted, it needs a few more things for kids, but they are working on that (Flying Unicorn, Storm, etc.) And, I do agree with his statement about IoA having a Disney name to it... My mother, for instance, went into the park holding a grudge against it because it "wasn't DISNEY"...but, if it was Disney's Islands of Adventure, she'd love it!

Disney does need help...pheneix is saying this...and I AGREE. 20K NEEDS to be either brought back or have something ELSE SPECTACULAR thrown in its place. Tomorrowland is vacant area (attraction-wise) during MOST of the year (tomorrowland theater, skyway, timekeeper, CoP). DCA is well...DCA. (Disney's Crappy Attempt). Animal Kingdom NEEDS attractions and DinoRama is NOT the way to go...but ok, they needed something quick...OK.
I say, keep the dough they put towards new hotels and build some more amazing things to actually PUT people into the rooms that they have! Space will definitely help! But I would say put in 2 Major E-rides or attractions in a YEAR (switching parks). Start with Epcot and AK...Next year have another one added to AK, and MK, then the next year, another in Epcot and MGM...Granted, it takes money...but IF YOU SPEND IT, THEY WILL COME! This isn't all about MONEY either...anyone can make a BIG ride with a lot of money...we need WDI quality BIG rides...even if they are not thrills. I would actually like to see a decent "ground-breaking" family attraction (no thrills...just FUN and all DISNEY)

Pheneix, nothing against you...I definitely agree with some of the things you say. Even though I'm a STRONG DISNEY LOVER!

 

[ToTBellHop]

Originally posted by WDWFREAK53
I hate to agree with Pheneix...because he does come across as being a Disney hater...but some things he says is true.

About IoA...it IS a great park...granted, it needs a few more things for kids, but they are working on that (Flying Unicorn, Storm, etc.) And, I do agree with his statement about IoA having a Disney name to it... My mother, for instance, went into the park holding a grudge against it because it "wasn't DISNEY"...but, if it was Disney's Islands of Adventure, she'd love it!

Disney does need help...pheneix is saying this...and I AGREE. 20K NEEDS to be either brought back or have something ELSE SPECTACULAR thrown in its place. Tomorrowland is vacant area (attraction-wise) during MOST of the year (tomorrowland theater, skyway, timekeeper, CoP). DCA is well...DCA. (Disney's Crappy Attempt). Animal Kingdom NEEDS attractions and DinoRama is NOT the way to go...but ok, they needed something quick...OK.
I say, keep the dough they put towards new hotels and build some more amazing things to actually PUT people into the rooms that they have! Space will definitely help! But I would say put in 2 Major E-rides or attractions in a YEAR (switching parks). Start with Epcot and AK...Next year have another one added to AK, and MK, then the next year, another in Epcot and MGM...Granted, it takes money...but IF YOU SPEND IT, THEY WILL COME! This isn't all about MONEY either...anyone can make a BIG ride with a lot of money...we need WDI quality BIG rides...even if they are not thrills. I would actually like to see a decent "ground-breaking" family attraction (no thrills...just FUN and all DISNEY)

Pheneix, nothing against you...I definitely agree with some of the things you say. Even though I'm a STRONG DISNEY LOVER!

Good luck with coming up with all the money for what Disney 'needs'. I love your $15,000,000,000 proposal, but there is no money for it. And I am not going to give a lesson in ride popularity. Disney has its own analysts and when popularity drops, rides get replaced. SIMPLE AS THAT. You are living in the Twilight Zone if you don't think the crappy economy affects disney. Regardless, something must be going right for Disney to be able to build six new parks b/t 1998 and 2008...and don't talk to me about quality b/c I don't want to hear it. The parks are expensive and there is no way you can deny that.

 

[pheneix]

>>>Good luck with coming up with all the money for what Disney 'needs'.<<<

I think over a billion a year in income is quite a bit of change to play with.

>>>You are living in the Twilight Zone if you don't think the crappy economy affects disney.<<<

No, actually I'm reading Cedar Fair's attendance report where it is disscussing how and why attendance is up this year.

>>>don't talk to me about quality b/c I don't want to hear it<<<

Judging by how little you seem to settle for when it comes to Disney that does not surprise me.

 

[MrPromey]

Originally posted by pheneix
Well, yeah... But according to corperate philosophy the parks are still an "excellent value, even with the reduced hours."

You know what’s funny is that I see a lot of 6pm and 7pm closings for both Universal Studios AND Islands of Adventures over the same time period so Disney is hardly alone in the Orlando are in this practice and since their at the gate ticket prices are actually lower than Universal’s, I hardly see Disney doing anything too over the top. Incidentally, this isn’t a new practice for Disney or Universal this time of year.

 

[pheneix]

>>>You know what’s funny is that I see a lot of 6pm and 7pm closings for both Universal Studios AND Islands of Adventure<<<

You don't see me defending them for the early closures either. I really think Universal should let their new fireworks shows operate on a weekend-only basis in the off-season. It would at least give them a reason to keep the parks open til 9 on the weekends (I am pleased that there are several 8 PM closings scattered throughout the off-season instead of 7, but that is not enough).

>>>Incidentally, this isn’t a new practice for Disney or Universal this time of year.<<<

I don't ever recall a time period when the Magic Kingdom was closed at 6 PM on a weekly basis during the off season.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Actually, Disney has posted closing times between 6 pm and 12 am for years. By the way, who are you to judge what I consider good attractions? Obviously, quite a few people love the new Disney attractions for Disney to have the top attendance numbers. Anyway, I would trust a piece of literature by Cedar Fair talking about their increased attendance about as much as I trust Michael Eisner's Annual Report...keep in mind Disney's $1,000,000,000 in profits (the number was less in 2001) from the parks is spread between eight different parks (I'm not including the Tokyo parks) and it is also used to pull the rest of the company's less-than-profitable parts along. The leftover money tends to allow for the necessary refurbishments and a couple new attractions every year. We've already gotten a couple new attractions this year and there are already two set to open next year.

 

[pheneix]

>>>Disney has posted closing times between 6 pm and 12 am for years.<<<

In all my years of park going the Magic Kingdom close at 6PM. Heck, I remember back around 4 years ago when the park regularly closed at 8 and 9 PM in October.

>>>quite a few people love the new Disney attractions for Disney to have the top attendance numbers<<<

Maybe it was because Disney's parks were so good that they were able to achieve those numbers. If you haven't noticed, Disney's numbers have been spiralling downward since the the "If it's good enough for Six Flags" strategy was put into effect. One needs to only look at Epcot's attendance (speaking of Epcot, it will probably lose it's number 3 position to MGM this year).

>>>Anyway, I would trust a piece of literature by Cedar Fair talking about their increased attendance about as much as I trust Michael Eisner's Annual Report<<<

Yeah, except that Cedar Fair isn't corrupted to the very core with poor management.

>>>Disney's $1,000,000,000 in profits (the number was less in 2001) from the parks is spread between eight different parks (I'm not including the Tokyo parks)<<<

Why? The Tokyo parks are pure profit. And you can do a lot with a $125,000,000 anyway. You can build a Mission Space, or ten Back to the Futures, or six Rockin' Roller Coasters. Just because Disney ed away a billion on DCA doesn't mean that you still can't build something good with it.

>>>it is also used to pull the rest of the company's less-than-profitable parts along<<<

Then maybe they should sell off these poor performing parts like Vivendi did.

>>>We've already gotten a couple new attractions this year and there are already two set to open next year.<<<

You talk like all four of these are the major attractions that they so desperately need.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Originally posted by pheneix
>>>Why? The Tokyo parks are pure profit. And you can do a lot with a $125,000,000 anyway. You can build a Mission Space, or ten Back to the Futures, or six Rockin' Roller Coasters. Just because Disney ed away a billion on DCA doesn't mean that you still can't build something good with it.

Disney does not run these parks nor do they make money from them; they are run by a separate company

Originally posted by pheneix
>>>it is also used to pull the rest of the company's less-than-profitable parts along<<<

Then maybe they should sell off these poor performing parts like Vivendi did.

We agree on this one

>>>We've already gotten a couple new attractions this year and there are already two set to open next year.<<<

You talk like all four of these are the major attractions that they so desperately need.

Mission: SPACE and PhilharMagic are major attractions.

 

[pheneix]

>>>Disney does not run these parks nor do they make money from them<<<

Yes they do. Every quarter Disney gets a check from OLC, 7% of their earnings if I remember correctly.

>>>Mission: SPACE and PhilharMagic are major attractions.<<<

M:S is, but unless Philharmagic is extremely spectacular (like Terminator 2 good), it may turn out to be more of a filler attraction than E-ticket.

 

[MrPromey]

Originally posted by pheneix

Maybe it was because Disney's parks were so good that they were able to achieve those numbers. If you haven't noticed, Disney's numbers have been spiralling downward since the the "If it's good enough for Six Flags" strategy was put into effect. One needs to only look at Epcot's attendance (speaking of Epcot, it will probably lose it's number 3 position to MGM this year).

Two words for you: Millennium Celebration. Epcot saw record numbers for the 1999/2000 season because it was the center of the Millennium Celebration and they publicly warned stock holders that those numbers were expected to go way down after the celebration. I don’t think that the 100 year celebration has had anywhere near the impact on MGM as the Millennium one had on Epcot. They’ve had a smaller budget to work with, done FAR less for it and to advertise it, it came in the middle of a recession and was actually delayed for a few months as a direct result of 9/11, came on the heels of the incredibly successful Millennium Celebration (sort of hard to convince people to go to a smaller party in FL the very next year) and has been more of a resort wide thing than the Millennium Celebration was. Even with the (expected) big hit that Epcot’s numbers took (which artificially brought the average for all of WDW down – something that many people referencing those numbers tend to omit either on purpose or by accident) the park isn’t doing that bad in comparison to local competition and other Disney parks. If you think I’m exaggerating the effects of the Millennium on their attendance, consider that the first reservation for New Years 1999/2000 at WDW was booked in 1980 when they only had one park. It was placed on a cork bulletin board because reservations were not yet computerized and they did not have books going that far ahead. In a very, very high attendance time, Disney did a media blitz and really focused on Epcot… That’s a tough act to follow a year later in and of itself but considering the economy and the events of the last year. I think Disney would have quietly dropped the whole 100 year thing if they hadn’t already let the cat out of the bag about it. They intelligently, haven’t wasted a ton of money promoting the 100 thing at a time when their money would give them the least bang for their buck.

Taking the facts that resulted in Epcot’s previously high attendance into account, it’s clear that they are not on some great declining pattern. In 1998, Epcot saw attendance figures of about 10,100,000 guests. Obviously, that’s higher than the 9 million they saw last year but for the same time period, MGM saw more guests and to put this all in perspective, Universal Studios saw 8,900,000 guests that year compared to the 7.5 or so that they saw last year. Either way you look at it, be it in raw numbers (a difference of 300 thousand people less than their previous year ) or in percentages (more accurate with 11% less for Epcot as apposed to 16% less for Universal Studios) Epcot is not doing all that bad. MGM’s numbers have dropped a bit less but I think that has to do more with increased popularity of a growing park than it does with slipping popularity of a mature park… If you base it on historical data and you consider Epcot to be a good example of Disney’s numbers spiraling downwards, Universal is in really big trouble when you look at the attendance drop for their flagship park… Don’t worry, I’m not trying to talk trash about Universal. I just know that you are a much bigger fan of them than Disney and I also know about how well you’ve been guesstimating they have been doing lately and I figured that you were unaware of these numbers. I’m simply trying to point out an industry trend and am using Disney’s closest competition on the same market as an example. These attendance figures all go up and down and to be honest, between the four parks, I don’t think Disney really cares which ones have the highest attendance. Obviously, the ones with the lower attendance are the ones they want to focus on but MGM has gotten a few recent improvements that Epcot hasn’t. Next year, Epcot will open Mission Space and we will see a slight boost in that park again at the cost of some attendance for the other three… When people have a hopper pass, they go where they please and I think this is part of Disney’s strategy and why they don’t seem as concerned with AK figures as everyone else seems to think they should be. AK has brought in a few extra guests. It isn’t exactly a big international crowd draw but it doesn’t need to be. It’s a way to alleviate some of the attendance from other Disney parks (most notably and in need, MK) and to keep people on Disney property for a day or enough of a day to make going to Universal or Sea World or anywhere else in the area, an unreasonable option. (Sure, you may get done with the park at noon, but are you going to hop in a cab or drive a rental car up to Universal and shell out $50 to spend half a day in one of their parks after spending half the day in a Disney park?)…. If they can get an extra $50 bucks out of people going in the gaits at AK, that’s nice but in the grand scheme of things, Disney seems to run their four parks like one big one and since a large number of on property guests have use of the four parks as one big one with hopper or length of stay passes, AK is more like an addition to the WDW theme park…

If you really want to see if Disney is in trouble, give them about five years or so and look at the average annual attendance for those five years and then we’ll talk but one or two particularly bad years with factors totally out of Disney’s control thrown in is not a good marker and neither are assumptions about annual attendance figures on a year that is barely half over.

 

[MrPromey]

Originally posted by pheneix

M:S is, but unless Philharmagic is extremely spectacular (like Terminator 2 good), it may turn out to be more of a filler attraction than E-ticket.

Well, from what I am to understand, Eisner was showing off test footage for it at the most recent Stockholder meeting as evidence of what Disney was learning to do (without the help of PIXAR) in regards to pure 3D animation so I would consider it to have a decent footing for the land that it’s going into. It’s all a matter of perspective though. Do you consider Space Ranger Spin to be filler? It’s got Fast Pass and frequently has waits that rival that of Space Mountain. The question is what you consider filler to be. Is it the obvious cheap tricks like Dinoland and the Magic Carpets or is it what doesn’t directly appeal to all teen and adult audiences?

From what I understand Philharmagic is supposed to carry some next generation interactive effects (beyond what’s in Honey I Shrunk the Audience and Tough to be a Bug) which are already more interactive than the combination of the live/3D action of T3D… Also, while I think the concept behind T3D is cool and that the three screens and the fact that they got the original actors is a major plus, they sort of didn’t have something when it came to the actual 3D… In the first half, when they are moving around, several times you see objects coming at you that become too big for the screen which immediately kills the effect of these things coming at you when they get clipped by the screens edges. Also, with the moving camera and the fact that most action is not directed specifically at the audience, it could have all been done almost to the same effect without the need of 3D… To the same degree, the end part sort of looses something too, I may be sketchy in my memory, but I’m still a little confused about the whole going inside Manticorp-of-the-future/Skynet thing. The T-gazillion thing comes out at the audience which suggests you are part of the show but I don’t recall them explaining how the whole theater managed to get inside the building and in the future for such a thing to happen… To his credit, James Cameron says it’s his first 3D movie and for a first time, I think he probably did a good job. I give him credit for trying to innovate things like the moving camera angles but I don’t think the thing was filmed correctly for the 3D medium… Although it lacks the star power, I think It’s Tough to Be A Bug is a much better example of a successfully executed 3D movie. The show is played directly to the audience and active elements in the theater affect every single audience member directly through sensory input. I think T3D is definitely better than say, Magic Journeys, Disney’s first theme park 3D movie that was the original in the Imagination pavilion but I think Capt. Eo, which played out in a similar manner, did a better job with the actual 3D angles. T3D sort of edges it out because of all the familiar faces it has and the fact that they do use live actors but the live action is something that sometimes works to Universal’s disadvantage. I’ve been on Kong when the driver heavily over acted making the ride seem worse and likewise been on Jaws when the driver didn’t seem too into it which really kills any great suspense… Likewise, I’ve been to T3D when the annoying woman did such a bad job that the audience didn’t even cheer when they killed her. I think T3D is a one of a kind attraction. It’s definitely not run of the mill and the combination of live actors and big on-screen talent is a really cool thing – I just think they loose something when the 3D kicks in, it’s sort of like watching Jaws in 3D instead of a movie designed specifically for the medium, you know? They directly involve the audience when it’s live action and then revert them to a typical theater going mass when the 3D kicks in sort of like how I think Disney maybe takes the interaction of Honey I Shrunk the Audience a little more over the top than is necessary… If it’s as good or better than It’s Tough to be a Bug, I think they’ll have a hit.

 

[MrPromey]

Originally posted by DogsRule!


Regardless, something must be going right for Disney to be able to build six new parks b/t 1998 and 2008...

Believe me, I’m not trying to hurt your argument but the international parks are not 100% Disney endeavors. In fact, I think in just about all cases, Disney is putting up less than 50% of the development costs making these very safe and cheap investments for them. They learned not to sell the farm like they did with Tokyo Disneyland but it’s not like another Florida or California park, either.

 

[ToTBellHop]

I seem to remember hearing that Disney paid for the Studios in Paris and that they will be paying for the Hong Kong park...I thought this was why those parks weren't on such a scale as DisneySeas...by the way, MrPromey--you are right, Eisner was showing footage from PhilharMagic, and it was supposed to be very impressive.