71jason
Well-Known Member
But WDW hotels cater, rather exclusively, to people coming to WDW, not people coming to "the Orlando area." The reverse isn't as true for the Universal hotels, or Nick Hotel, or CoCo Key ...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Bad news from our friends at MiceAge...
- Thread starter DisneyGentleman
- Start date
But WDW hotels cater, rather exclusively, to people coming to WDW, not people coming to "the Orlando area." The reverse isn't as true for the Universal hotels, or Nick Hotel, or CoCo Key ...
rioriz
Well-Known Member
This is why I don't stress about Uni vs. WDW
Anyone remember what Uni was like before Comcast and Potter? Stale for years after opening IoA...
Disney had their decade and it was fun and exciting and we get to experience still, the attractions from that time.
Uni is having their decade now. And it is fun and exciting. So lets enjoy it.
Disney has been around way to long to let their parks erode to Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom...so the time will come and when it does enjoy!
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
Unlike Universal, Disney invented its own, definitive versions of those tales, added new characters, new motifs, and until recently didn't include outside non-studio-invented/adapted stuff to its parks. Even with those additions, the real pull of the Disney parks is still DISNEY - Disney magic. NOT Muppets, NOT Star Wars, NOT Marvel. It's the one advantage Disney still has. Too bad Iger hasn't learned that yet, even after the disaster/resuscitation of DCA...
homerdance
Well-Known Member
This could be one of the first times I have ever seen good things said about Comcasts CEO, as most people who have his cable product would like to disagree He likes money that is all
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
No I thought that they were already there...
People go to WDW or DL, When I hear 'Disney Parks' I think Cedar Faire or Six Flags
Beholder
Well-Known Member
Good point regarding IP's and the fact that other than Walts personal creations, quite a few things that people associate Disney with are, in fact, not "in house". Disney does have some amazing and wonderful original creations, and I do wish they'd utilize them more. I don't criticize UNI for not being especially original, it's a movie "studio" , it's based around a multitude of concepts and ideas. That's the point. IoA, maybe not so much.
But good point though.
MOXOMUMD
Well-Known Member
I read this and your avatar made me think of a cat with a laser pointer. 
Ugh, the purist attitude. I don't want to see something like Tomorrowland turn into "SW land" or "Stark's Expo" – it's too great as an original creation. But I see absolutely no problem with an Indy ride in Adventureland or SW at DHS. Actually, I would welcome any outside property to DHS. It fits there IMO.
My biggest argument would simply be that Dis has too many of its own properties (Pixar especially) that it isn't doing enough with. Spending $500 mil on Avatar, when Pixar Place only has one attraction, is laughable IMO.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
There is a word that describes the Disney versions and that they are -BEEP-ized versions. There are some of us on this site who couldn't give two -BEEP- about the Toons it is the parks ... The credit the only thing I will say about Iger is at least he knows more people know of Yoda on a WW level than some of their old Toons which is good stuff.
Sue_Vongello
Well-Known Member
The purist attitude is rather amusing because Walt is the originator of all things Disney and he was progressive, so a by definition a purist is someone who holds to the ideals of the originator. Therefore a "purist" saying this is the way the park should be or not is actually contradictory towards the originator.
Anyway ... that's just a little aside that always makes me laugh when the "purists" state how the parks should not include this or that ...
NOW ... let's talk about the IP and the parks.
The hardest thing for me to digest, specifically as someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in the business world (focusing my time mostly on the various tangible and intangible items that relate to profitability), I don't understand why more of their in-house IP isn't utilized. This is not because I think that IP that the Mouse does not own should be used but the reality is the majority of the most successful franchises in terms of popularity and merchandise sales are in-house. What I am talking about now is the old business tried and true term of "synergy" which I am sure is used in a variety of forms and means in the boards rooms out in Burbank.
Let's take Cars for example and WDW ... I am by no means a Cars fan but to not have built a Cars attraction at WDW is mind boggling to me because it's a synergy fanatic's wet dream ... this is a property that kids love but even more importantly the merchandising monster that it is makes this a no-brainer. I'm not saying it will have Potter level effect on attendance because the appeal may not reach as broad but the simple facts are these ... it's an in-house IP, it's very popular, it's merchandising prints money, and marketed properly to kids it will drive attendance to the park which affects hotel $, food $, and merchandise $. There are also long term benefits because of the success of a Cars attraction/land it keeps these characters at the center of people's attention therefore maintaining their relevance which (synergy) enables Disney to then make TV shows, books, or more substandard sequels. I just don't get it.
I love the Muppets. I grew up with them. But let's be honest they will not drive attendance and they will not sell merchandise.
Star Wars on the other hand ... whether you love it or hate it, the synergy of creating a world from Star Wars that people could explore affects so many aspects of the business. And Star Wars the appeal spans generations and age ... just look at the conventions around the world! People travel to conventions to meet some no name D celebrity who wore a storm trooper mask once! Are you telling me if they built a land dedicated to this franchise you wouldn't have hordes of people coming, no ... making a pilgrimage to be in "their world" ... and then it goes further ... Star Wars has never been afraid to put it's name on any piece of merchandise and their is no reason for that to change. You have merchandising opportunities, more hotel $, more food $, more more more ...
These are two examples, and admittedly ones we have discussed at length (too much) on here but I feel like I am taking crazy pills because these ideas/plans are not pie in the sky fan-boy dreams/wishes, you know like, "hey bring back horizons!!" ... these are no-brainer ideas/plans from a business perspective that point A to point B to point C is clear, creating synergy across all sectors, increasing sales/profitability is all right there but they aren't doing it. ... I just don't understand at all.
I get that the company is making money and is insanely profitable right now but long term what is the sustainability? OK ... let's argue this moderate growth is sustainable, but how much larger can they increase the growth by investing more now? What if profits could be increased by 5% from the best years by investing now? Wouldn't that be worth it?
Anyway to bring this full circle ... I think they only hope they have of making MM+ a success (recouping investment) is by re-investing in park attractions/entertainment. IF they were to fast track a SW land in DHS and since this was all new they could incorporate MB functionality into the land, perhaps having elements that could be interacted by "waving your hand (wearing the band)" in front of items ... well then you've just created a world where people can use "the force" ... think of the insane popularity of the land and the affect it could have on Magic Bands?! (Oh @#%@# I hope I didn't just give them an idea to run with ...)
rioriz
Well-Known Member
To Disney's Credit, not a good one, I am sure they figured to have Magic Bands all rolled out a year ago and start recouping the money for attractions by now. If all had worked as planned (and it has not) then we would be seeing construction on SW, Cars, Avatar etc already started.
I totally agree with you that Disney will strike back and build more. With current leadership though, you have to wonder will they throw the same weight behind it that they have with NexGen/MM+ or will it be "build just enough to make it look cool but keep it cheap" type attitude? The later is obviously what they favor. New FL is a perfect example. When I looked at the artist renderings when they first announced it I pictured myself in the lush landscape with trees and water flowing everywhere. But when I first visited NFL I didnt feel that immersed in the land as I expected to be. Much more jammed together than renderings appear and 1/8 of the trees and water ways that were drawn. Beast castle to me is a horrible job of force perspective. They could have made it larger to give it somewhat of an awe inspiring look but they didnt.
It reminds of watching the documentaries or reading stories of DL and WDW being built and Walt was constantly being told he was spending too much or thinking too big and going over budget but thats what made the parks so AMAZING. Walt saw waaaay past the dollar amount and knew what he was creating would keep em coming for decades. He wouldnt have put a DVC store smack in the middle of a new land. TDO did what the bean counters wanted Walt to do, cheap it up and dont spend too much. They (TDO & whoever) have a dollar amount that they feel justifies it being "magical". That is where they fail every time.
Last edited:
Quite possibly.
FrankLapidus
Well-Known Member
Which is why I'm hoping that when Iger goes he takes Staggs and Rasulo with him. The company needs a new perspective, someone creative at the top who knows how to utilise assets rather than simply stockpile them.
71jason
Well-Known Member
Last weekend, all I could think walking through Streets of America during the day was "Wow, this was almost unique shops and restaurants on either side of me, rather than fake buildings no one even looks at." But TDO is too scared to spend money to take the steps necessary to make it. Be it a micro level--opening Tomorrowland Terrace on a day that might or might not be busy--or macro level--overhauling DHS.
tirian
Well-Known Member
For the first time—ever—Uni is willing to invest in other people's IPs to create immersive environments
Walt Disney created his own versions. Even the Grimm brothers didn't create the original fairy tales—they collected folk tales that existed for decades, sometimes centuries.
Captain Neo
Well-Known Member
30 years ago isn't recent dawg
and let me tell you something Star Wars and Indiana Jones deserve to be in those parks far more than that pixar trash that shames Walt Disney's good name. Honestly the fact that Lasseter didn't have those chuck-e-cheese shoot um up carnival rides shut down the second he became Creative Officer at the Company shows that he was not the best person to be calling the shots for the parks.
I love, love, love this post. And an IP that the mouse owns doesn't come with the yearly licensing costs and 2-5% skimmed off the top of merchandise sales either. You can bet the mouse is paying Cameron at least $1 mil/year + 5% of all merch sold.
Besisdes SW, the ones that really surprise me that aren't used more are Jungle Book and Lion King at AK and Monsters Inc and Incredibles at DHS. Now JB and LK will never bring the gate revenue that Avatar will, but think about how much a dark ride for each would add to the overall experience at AK. When you think that both could be built for under $50 mil each, that the mouse wouldn't have to pay any licensing or merchandising fees, the amount of merch those two could sell, and how much it would help to advertise their own brand, it actually would seem to make more fiscal sense to go with those than it does Avatar.
Don't be so dismissive about the Muppets. If they would actually expand their presence at DHS (and not rely on a single 25 year old attraction), the Muppets could be as popular as almost any other IP. They have the potential to sell A TON of merchandise.
As for Cars, I have a feeling our version will be based on Planes. IMHO, they're only waiting for that brand to become stronger (like after the sequel this year) before adding it to the parks.
Last edited:
Huh? Pixar has been distributed by Disney since day one, is synonymous with the Disney name, is animation, is beloved by hundreds of millions of children, and, oh yeah, is responsible for saving Disney financially.
I'm as big a Lucas fan as anyone, but how in the world (besides your own personal feelings against Pixar) would an IP that Disney just recently acquired possibly fit in the parks better than Pixar?
englanddg
One Little Spark...
Oh, I know quite well, CEC would have been more than happy to have a "shoot em up ride" like that.