MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[Casper Gutman]

In the 1900's you had a major flu pandemic, two world wars, the korean war, and Vietnam. Those were all Very Bad Stuff.

In the 1800's you had an invasion of the country, slavery, and a civil war. Those were Very Bad Stuff.

In the 1700's you had war on what would become the US soil in the French/Indian War, the revolution, and multiple other major wars across the globe. Those were all Very Bad Stuff.

What is going on today globally, and here in the US doesn't come anywhere close to capitalized Very Bad Stuff on any type of historical scale.

You don’t need to lecture me about history. Trust me.

And the attitude on display here is a big part of what I was talking about.

We absolutely are on a “historical scale” of Very Bad Things right now. That will become more and more evident. And it has already effected Disney and will continue to effect Disney (and Universal) in profound and overwhelmingly negative ways. And lest we let Disney off the hook, their pattern of bad practices and decisions over the last decades and the cowardice of their top executives will exacerbate the impact of external developments.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Most of those "budget cuts" were actually "cost overruns." And once you run over budget, you need to cut somewhere to stay in budget (or not to be too wildly over budget).

The sticking point is that Disney almost always spends the money that was budgeted. The budget wasn't cut. Instead, the scope of the new build is cut back because the project started to cost more than budgeted.

Disney doesn't budget $100M for a new attraction and then half-way thru the build says, "Hey, let's cut this back to $75M and save some money!!" It's when they're on track to spend $150M over budget, they say, "Hey, we don't really need Al's Barn Shop, do we?"

And yes, this is a criticism of Disney for not being honest with itself over costs.

Well then Disney is REALLY BAD in calculating budgets then for BOTH their movies and theme parks.

I think they will further camouflage this fault going forward by blaming (you know who)

Worst part is, its the guests that will suffer with "scope cut" Cars and Villains lands

"scope cut", I like it, I will use that going forward.

When you think about it, "scope cut" is WORSE than "cost cut" because the guest get a worse attraction AND the company didn't save any money; its a lose, lose!

 

[WorldExplorer]

Disney causes strong positive emotional reactions (they want to do so, it helps with business) and so also causes strong negative emotional reactions.

They're two sides of the same coin; it's natural and it's not going to stop.

 

[Agent H]

It's 'whether' and yes, I do think they have been consistently underwhelming and disappointing.

Sorry. Autocorrect.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Most of those "budget cuts" were actually "cost overruns." And once you run over budget, you need to cut somewhere to stay in budget (or not to be too wildly over budget).

The sticking point is that Disney almost always spends the money that was budgeted. The budget wasn't cut. Instead, the scope of the new build is cut back because the project started to cost more than budgeted.

Disney doesn't budget $100M for a new attraction and then half-way thru the build says, "Hey, let's cut this back to $75M and save some money!!" It's when they're on track to spend $150M over budget, they say, "Hey, we don't really need Al's Barn Shop, do we?"

And yes, this is a criticism of Disney for not being honest with itself over costs.

I have thought more about this and I again see a double standard in TWDC.

In their movie business, when they have a bad test screening, they will re shoot and re shoot and go over budget to try to fix the problem for a movie no one will remember a month after its out of the theater.

In their theme park business when they reach their budget, instead spending the money to deliver the attraction they wanted to, they will "scope cut" and deliver a lesser attraction that will be around for 20 years or so.

 

[Agent H]

I have thought more about this and I again see a double standard in TWDC.

In their movie business, when they have a bad test screening, they will re shoot and re shoot and go over budget to try to fix the problem for a movie no one will remember a month after its out of the theater.

In their theme park business when they reach their budget, instead spending the money to deliver the attraction they wanted to, they will "scope cut" and deliver a lesser attraction that will be around for 20 years or so.

Well they have been trying to cut down on this. But yes they spend more on movies and tv shows because those divisions will die without consistent investment. As opposed to the parks which Can float (for a while anyway) on their own as opposed to film and television where it’s sink or swim.

 

[James Alucobond]

In their movie business, when they have a bad test screening, they will re shoot and re shoot and go over budget to try to fix the problem for a movie no one will remember a month after its out of the theater.

In their theme park business when they reach their budget, instead spending the money to deliver the attraction they wanted to, they will "scope cut" and deliver a lesser attraction that will be around for 20 years or so.

They probably have a much clearer view into what the return on investment will be for an attraction in the parks versus what it will be for a film. Attraction additions and refreshes are part of a pre-existing parks ecosystem with more or less "known" attendance and a good understanding of how different kinds of attractions influence visitor behavior, so having a fairly explicit cap set on the budget makes a good deal of sense. With films, there are a lot more variables that might encourage you to spend beyond your initial budget in search of better box office results, though it's obviously gotten a bit out of hand in some cases (and would be avoidable if someone spoke up earlier).

 

[Disstevefan1]

Well they have been trying to cut down on this. But yes they spend more on movies and tv shows because those divisions will die without consistent investment. As opposed to the parks which Can float (for a while anyway) on their own as opposed to film and television where it’s sink or swim.

Pure speculation on my part, for attractions, Imagineering says to the finance department "We can build Cars land for this much" then the finance department says, "We will only give you this much, make it work".

Sort of what Walt and Roy used argue over, but today, the finance department always wins.

 

[Agent H]

Pure speculation on my part, for attractions, Imagineering says to the finance department "We can build Cars land for this much" then the finance department says, "We will only give you this much, make it work".

Sort of what Walt and Roy used argue over, but today, the finance department always wins.

I do believe this is what happens at the start but the finance department always wins? I’m not so sure about that.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Budget cuts in projects is standard operating procedure for Disney. Budget cuts WILL happen in Cars and Villains having nothing to do with (you know who), no matter who is in office.

But YES Disney WILL BLAME everything that goes wrong going forward on (you know who).

Now that I think about it Disney now has a built in excuse again, they can simply swap (that thing that happened in 2020) with (you know who).

Why do you chose to lie so much?

 

[gorillaball]

You don’t need to lecture me about history. Trust me.

And the attitude on display here is a big part of what I was talking about.

We absolutely are on a “historical scale” of Very Bad Things right now. That will become more and more evident. And it has already effected Disney and will continue to effect Disney (and Universal) in profound and overwhelmingly negative ways. And lest we let Disney off the hook, their pattern of bad practices and decisions over the last decades and the cowardice of their top executives will exacerbate the impact of external developments.

All about perspective. Glass half full, glass half empty. If you look for Very Bad Stuff you can find it. I choose to look at the bright side, and if that makes me part of the problem you are referring to, so be it- I’ll live happy. I only get to live once and I choose the positive perspective when possible.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Pure speculation on my part, for attractions, Imagineering says to the finance department "We can build Cars land for this much" then the finance department says, "We will only give you this much, make it work".

Sort of what Walt and Roy used argue over, but today, the finance department always wins.

Probably to some extent - it does seem in the past Walt would get what funding he needed for his projects and Roy would figure it out (if it wasn't something he was personally involved with then the budget would be an issue then)

My hop (and they can prov me right or wrong) is they know they have to get it right with this project - only get to fully in the rivers of America once - and as such will get the budget needed and more likely other projects see theirs cut

Obviously large macro things can totally change the entire playing board

 

[Disstevefan1]

They probably have a much clearer view into what the return on investment will be for an attraction in the parks versus what it will be for a film. Attraction additions and refreshes are part of a pre-existing parks ecosystem with more or less "known" attendance and a good understanding of how different kinds of attractions influence visitor behavior, so having a fairly explicit cap set on the budget makes a good deal of sense. With films, there are a lot more variables that might encourage you to spend beyond your initial budget in search of better box office results, though it's obviously gotten a bit out of hand in some cases (and would be avoidable if someone spoke up earlier).

With the rise of LLMP, LLSP and LLPP, we can hope this will possibly influence the company to create better attractions with maybe higher budgets.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Why do you chose to lie so much?

Ha, what makes the post a lie?

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

You don’t need to lecture me about history. Trust me.

And the attitude on display here is a big part of what I was talking about.

We absolutely are on a “historical scale” of Very Bad Things right now. That will become more and more evident. And it has already effected Disney and will continue to effect Disney (and Universal) in profound and overwhelmingly negative ways. And lest we let Disney off the hook, their pattern of bad practices and decisions over the last decades and the cowardice of their top executives will exacerbate the impact of external developments.

Apparently someone needs to give you the lecture.

Considering no one, and i mean no one, with any type of historical perspective would talk about historical scale, and theme park operations of two theme parks in one city of one country in the same sentence. Hell the parks in Florida are each one part, of the total multination conglomerate operations of their corresponding two parent companies. Both companies could cease to exist in their entirety and it still wouldn't rise to the level of a historic "Very Bad Thing"


Overwhelmingly negative ways? Seriously? Has the company filed for bankruptcy, either 7 or 11? That would be evidence of an overwhelming negative effect, as it would show the company was overwhelmed and couldn't handle its liabilities. That hasn't happened. Have they had to close down any of their destinations? Nope, in fact they are opening new sections of parks in Asia, Europe, and soon in the US. Has there been some form of major or profound changes in operating locations/times like only being open on weekend or busy summer seasons? Nope no overwhelming impacts there.

There have been some price changes, and a large influx of new expenditures, the scope of which may change given new market conditions. In no way does that rise to profound and overwhelming impacts, negative or otherwise. You might personally not like some of the new things that were built, or the new changes in park operations, but your subjective opinion doesn't give rise to anything profound or overwhelming.

As to cowardice of their top executives, i mean seriously get real with the hyperbole. They are running a multinational entertainment business not riding a Higgins boat to Omaha beach. Its not an executives job to be heroic, or take risks, its to continue operations and make money.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Both companies could cease to exist in their entirety and it still wouldn't rise to the level of a historic "Very Bad Thing"

Not that I even know what a "Very Bad Thing" is as a unit of measure, but in my opinion, a "Very Bad Thing" would be an understatement for central Florida as well as the entire state of Florida if both companies ceased to exist.

It would be a "Very Good Thing" for SeaWorld, Bush Gardens, Gatorland and Legoland I suppose

 

[easyrowrdw]

Apparently someone needs to give you the lecture.

Considering no one, and i mean no one, with any type of historical perspective would talk about historical scale, and theme park operations of two theme parks in one city of one country in the same sentence. Hell the parks in Florida are each one part, of the total multination conglomerate operations of their corresponding two parent companies. Both companies could cease to exist in their entirety and it still wouldn't rise to the level of a historic "Very Bad Thing"


Overwhelmingly negative ways? Seriously? Has the company filed for bankruptcy, either 7 or 11? That would be evidence of an overwhelming negative effect, as it would show the company was overwhelmed and couldn't handle its liabilities. That hasn't happened. Have they had to close down any of their destinations? Nope, in fact they are opening new sections of parks in Asia, Europe, and soon in the US. Has there been some form of major or profound changes in operating locations/times like only being open on weekend or busy summer seasons? Nope no overwhelming impacts there.

There have been some price changes, and a large influx of new expenditures, the scope of which may change given new market conditions. In no way does that rise to profound and overwhelming impacts, negative or otherwise. You might personally not like some of the new things that were built, or the new changes in park operations, but your subjective opinion doesn't give rise to anything profound or overwhelming.

As to cowardice of their top executives, i mean seriously get real with the hyperbole. They are running a multinational entertainment business not riding a Higgins boat to Omaha beach. Its not an executives job to be heroic, or take risks, its to continue operations and make money.

I believe the poster is referring to larger social and political issues that are occurring at the moment. It's not about Disney being in dire straights but the country being so. And those "Very Bad Things" are becoming manifest within Disney.

At least that's my read on the poster's comments, based on what I've seen in other threads.

 

[solidyne]

I believe the poster is referring to larger social and political issues that are occurring at the moment. It's not about Disney being in dire straights but the country being so. And those "Very Bad Things" are becoming manifest within Disney.

At least that's my read on the poster's comments, based on what I've seen in other threads.

I understood the poster to mean this as well. Nevertheless, his VBTs still could be more clearly defined. Does Caspar mean a financial collapse, one that is decades in the making, has been predicted by many, and is due both to the Fed and to bipartisan mismanagement? Or maybe he is just talking politics: my guy good, your guy scary...

If it's the latter, the post should be deleted.