Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I think there is a significant PR price to be paid longterm if they weren’t yanking splash…
…but no, they aren’t being “forced” to do this.
“Nobody puts baby in the corner”
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Chapek's comments - he doesn't want anyone on this board at WDW any more
- Thread starter TQQQ
- Start date
…but no, they aren’t being “forced” to do this.
“Nobody puts baby in the corner”
el_super
Well-Known Member
You are right, and it is sort of silly to try to compare the two. Song of the South's future potential earnings are pretty close to $0 now, and The Princess and the Frog could still bring in millions (or billions) of dollars in the next 40 years.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Disney isn't running from anyone or reacting... Disney is trying to lead.
It's up to each person to decide if they like the path being forged.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Huh? People go all the time on their first visits. There isn't some hurdle of unfamiliarity to be addressed. This isn't a clear cut delineation between the people who go all the time and the people who will never go. There is a whole spectrum of people that fall in between. And the goal here for Disney, is that people who are inclined to only go once, or maybe two or three times in a decade or more, could be encouraged to go more often if the experience changed for the better.
This is more in line with getting the people who go one or two times in a decade, to maybe make three or more visits. To do that though, comfortably, they need to convince the people going 15 times today, to ... go less.
People buy absurd things all the time. Doesn't really mean anything.
MickeyLuv'r
Well-Known Member
Yes, but future earnings isn't relevant.
That SotS was only released in the USA + Canada vs. a film that was released globally after 63 years of population growth, are two very important variables.
The original quote was someone saying SotS wasn't as successful as PotP. Given all of the above, it was. SotS was so successful, that Disney re-released 5 more times.
We have no idea how PatF will be received 40 years from now. PotF is full of stereotypes.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Of course they are.
Yeah but you admitted that it was an apples to oranges comparison. Box Office visits was generally the only way to see a film for 50 years. That isn't true anymore. A more direct comparison of how much money a movie made would be to compare Song of the South with all the home video sales of Princess and the Frog. You start to throw in merchandise sales and potential future earnings and it's clear to see that Princess and the Frog is the real winner here.
Even if you want to subscribe to the most cynical view, that it was being done for money, PatF is going to make Disney far more money than Splash Mountain did.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Slowest time of the year…however. With a few exceptions here or there
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
…todays winnerMoral initiativethank you for bringing some laughter into my day
crazy4disney
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
You really think Disney was “leading” when they made the decision to destroy Splash?!?
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I think it served many purposes…at least “part” was leading…
I honestly think the largest two factors were 1. PR for Hollywood
2. Getting rid of a high maintenance cost ride and “justifying” the expense of replacing it.
crazy4disney
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I was laughed at and mocked and eventually banned from the Splash chat for partly saying maintenance was definitely a factor in this decision hiding behind the do good PR spin they tried to play…
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Just doing a quick check of EU, China, UK, India, and even Ozon in Russia I see Song of the South DVD and Blue Ray for sale.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
You do understand discs are obsolete now, right?
Is the “Remus collection” gonna pop up on D+?
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I think it’d just a noticeable trend…without anything to do with PATF.
The canary in the coal mine for me was runaway railway. No real reason to put it there UNLESS it was because you wanted rid of the movie ride. Would have made more sense to put it in dead animation courtyard.
crazy4disney
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Used the exact same reference in my comparison. They let it rot to make the transition “justifiable” same way they doing w Splash. Believe Martin even chimed in saying/correcting me by adding Horizons to the example
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
You sure he was “correcting”? They absolutely wanted rid of horizons due to maintenance and building decay - if I recall? (That was a long time ago)…
Or right next door, they canned the entire wonders of life pavilion simply to dump the cost…there was no other “reason” that held water.
There are only a couple of spots where they seem to “bear the cost” anymore…most are “classic” in magic kingdom…the other is the American adventure.
crazy4disney
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Think he may have given us the 1st example of this as an addition but i agree. WoL still
Empty a disgrace. GMR replaced Not refurbed a disgrace especially when you had the space and needed the capacity
From what I've read about some of the decisions they aren't driven by management having agendas, but are sometimes are driven by lower level employees complaining. That appears to have been the catalyst for Disney getting all bent out of place with the Florida law on gender education in elementary school... unless Chapek was lying.
Club Cooloholic
Well-Known Member
So it would seem you CAN'T avoid the phone that much if you can't even use a bathroom in a normal way. But what do I know, I usually require 2 hands when I pee...lol.