But yet they give that gate away for 5 months at the end of the year when they sell those holiday party tickets that are still usually cheaper then a day ticket.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News 'Beyond Big Thunder Mountain' Blue Sky concept revealed for Magic Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
mysto
Well-Known Member
I agree that MK has the least need of a new attraction of the FL parks, although all 4 need some.
Adding an attraction will increase attendance
AND increase capacity
AND cannibalize attendance elsewhere.
I can never understand why people try to argue either/or on this topic when it seems to me that it's all of the above. I don't even think statistics are required to figure it out it's so obvious.
Ultimately though, adding a park attraction means more park attractions regardless of where it's placed. This is a good thing for parks fans, if you are in fact a parks fan.
Adding an attraction will increase attendance
AND increase capacity
AND cannibalize attendance elsewhere.
I can never understand why people try to argue either/or on this topic when it seems to me that it's all of the above. I don't even think statistics are required to figure it out it's so obvious.
Ultimately though, adding a park attraction means more park attractions regardless of where it's placed. This is a good thing for parks fans, if you are in fact a parks fan.
DisneyNeighbor
Well-Known Member
If they move the fireworks launch sites farther back why do they need to make any changes to ROA or train tracks. Just incorporate them into the new land. Someone in this post talked about how the canal is problematic on being kept clean. It's a vilians land, leaving it nasty will fit the theme of villians land. Disney has a lot of real estate back there which could give them dozens of attractions if they do it right.
seabreezept813
Well-Known Member
I dread making our Hollywood Studios and AK park plans because of all the RS. We bring our kids as babies (1.5) so that’s on us but come on it’s Disney World! My stepdaughter and daughters have big age gaps so it’s the only few years we can guarantee vacations with everyone. We’d totally spend less time at MK if they spread out the full accessibility rides.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Could be, I don't have the plans in front of me or anywhere near me for that matter, but if my memory serves me the seating in the attraction goes down quite a distance below MK's ground level. I guess if the utilidors were running between the two existing theaters then that might be the problem. Anyway, it was just a thought.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
Pardon my ignorance, but what is RS?
seabreezept813
Well-Known Member
Rider Switch. So basically, AK and HS both have 4-7 rides we have to take turns doing because our littles can’t or are too scared to ride them. Magic Kingdom and Epcot have the most rides we can do as an entire family. We still do all the attractions, but Rider Switching all day gets tiring for kiddos and parents. We liked it better when my stepdaughter was little because they let you bring the child through the whole queue and then wait by the loading dock. That way was faster because you didn’t have to wait twice, even Genie or Fastpass line can build so it’s a time suck.
Right now, there are 3 attractions at AK my DD1 and DD4 can do.. Safaris, Navi River, and the flying Dinos. Add in Lion King and Bug Show and you get 5.
Hollywood Studios.. Mickey, Toy Story Mania, Muppets..
While many say Disney isn’t for babies or toddlers, my videos of my kiddos with the characters etc can totally prove otherwise. But I’d love two or three more flat or boat rides for those two parks. By then my kids will do more, but the same logic really applies to seniors and those with certain disabilities. Disney is unique in offering non thrill attractions in general, but I really wish they had more.
Elijah Abrams
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
For AK, not just rides/attractions, but also some new animal additions like kangaroos and jaguars.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
If they go through with the expansion to the Northern part of RoL, they could certainly add a theater as part of that. One in the Villains land to have a show based on them would work. But honestly I think the best option would be as an addition to Liberty Sq north of HM. Having a large enclosed theater there would solve any fireworks fallout concerns and you could build a colonial style building that would fit architecturally. And I think as long it fits the environment, the show could really be flexible in terms of what is out there.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
That’s what I said. It’s easier to move the fireworks launch site than it is to redirect canals or change the configuration of the RoA/train tracks.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
It was rumored that if Moana is added that the area around it would also get some new animals. Perhaps some Australian ones if they go with an Oceania identity to the new land.
drew81
Well-Known Member
They have kangaroos in front of Tree of Life.
The Lochness Monsta
Well-Known Member
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
Your point doesn't hold up.
Despite underperforming by traditional metrics, Encanto has proved itself clearly to be a highly popular property that a wide audience connected with. Suggesting that people are just watching it because it's accessible ignores that it's outperforming 99.999% of Disney's accessible catalog.
Its streaming performance is higher than most of Disney's most popular franchises ever, and it has been for a year now. It makes sense that Disney would pay attention to that, regardless of poor box office. That Disney+ is losing money is immaterial - that people are watching it as much as Moana and more than Frozen and Lion King (and every other movie Disney has) tells them exactly what they need to know about how to use this moving forward.
It wasn't my favorite movie either, but I can still see why they would continue to invest in it.
Last edited:
peter11435
Well-Known Member
That’s not really how any of that works.
Coaster Lover
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
To paraphrase a masterpiece of a film...
"Merchandising, merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made! Encanto-the T-shirt, Encanto-the Coloring Book, Encanto-the Lunch box, Encanto-the Breakfast Cereal, Encanto-the Flame Thrower.”
I can assure you that the majority of the most expensive content they are putting on Disney+ they are creating with merchandising opportunities in mind (Baby Yoda? Yeah...) and that's where they are making the real money too. Would it have been nice for Encanto to have made more in theaters? Sure. But the fact that so many eyes saw it on Disney+ has resulted in huge sales of the soundtrack and merchandise which completely justify the company (and fans) calling it a success.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
It's not just Disney+, Here are the top 5 videos on the DisneyMusicVEVO YouTube channel
1. You're Welcome (1.4 billion views]
2. How Far I'll Go (1.1 billion views)
3. Shiny (536 million views)
4. We Don't Talk About Bruno (521 million views)
5. Into the Unknown (521 million views)
The popularity of Encanto is shown across social media platforms
cookiee_munster
Well-Known Member
Apologies for the major thread drift, but when the animated films are in development, do you think imagineering get a look in at the same time? for possible attraction ideas?
The only ride I'm familiar with that opened way before the film release was Jurassic Park. To be fair, even if the film was an absolute dud that no one saw, you could guarantee that people would still be riding it.
I guess it's a lot of money to really gamble on, but sometimes I think why on earth weren't these attractions developed sooner? To at least try and ride the wave of popularity at its peak and then just carry on riding the wave of nostalgia and along the way sell billions of popcorn buckets and bubble wands with your star plastered on the front of it...
The only ride I'm familiar with that opened way before the film release was Jurassic Park. To be fair, even if the film was an absolute dud that no one saw, you could guarantee that people would still be riding it.
I guess it's a lot of money to really gamble on, but sometimes I think why on earth weren't these attractions developed sooner? To at least try and ride the wave of popularity at its peak and then just carry on riding the wave of nostalgia and along the way sell billions of popcorn buckets and bubble wands with your star plastered on the front of it...
Just as a data point: It's Tough to be a Bug opened before Bug's Life was released.
Are you so desperate to score points against Disney and Encanto that you've now resorted to just make up stuff and appear foolish?
D+ does not have a free tier. Its ad-supported tier is $7.99. So, you were wrong.
D+ is **PURPOSEFULLY** losing money as a "loss leader." Their SEC guidance was that it would lose money while it is gearing up and they're investing in it to make it an international market. The guidance is that they will be profitable in fiscal year 2024. All they need do is raise the subscription price a few bucks and it's in the black.
How is it you hear about D+ losing money but not know about the financial plan? Whatever your news sources, you need to change them.
Or, keep opining about stuff you know nothing about.