DHS CARS LAND

[MichWolv]

It definitely would be, could be the RSR of WDW, pulling new crowds.
I just hope they don't do it the cheap way and build something like the Indy coaster in DLP, believe me, it's the worst Disney coaster if you don't count The Great Goofini. Boring like hell although it features inversions and really bad imagineering, it reeks 10 miles against the wind "cheap, downwatered substitute" for an attraction that would have been one of the most awesome Disney projects, on par with RSR.

I disagree. I much prefer The Great Goofini to that thing at DLP.

 

[RSoxNo1]

There is no value in the current model for another gate. They just can't monetize it well enough, and as much as the broken record in this thread talks about capacity.. we all know if that's the need, adding attractions is cheaper than adding a whole new park. But the broken record keeps on playing...

Which is why I said earlier in the thread.. the only way we see a fifth gate is if it's ticketed separately. The MYW model does not keep scaling in terms of return for Disney and still being able to charge a price people will pay universally for tickets. If Disney were to add a new park, it would be with a new ticket structure that would monetize the new gate, not just WDW as a whole. That's my prediction If you were to build a starwars park.. or similar.. you could charge separate for it and you could draw people just to see that. IMO

Look at the water parks.. that's a good example of separate admission to monetize the gate itself.. while still riding on WDW as a main draw to be there.

This is an interesting point, and something that I believe @Lee has mentioned previously. The MYW model will likely have to change soon. It's already evolving into the old model where the separation for each additional day is much larger now than when it started.

I wouldn't be surprised if they take the opportunity to break through the $100 ticket barrier as an opportunity to revamp the pricing system entirely.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Actually, you are the first person I have ever heard say that Tangled wasn't that great. I'd say it's one of the best Disney movies in about 15 years or so. And critics agree.

Tangled wasn't up to Pixar quality. However if you compare it to recent Disney movies it compares more favorably. For recent princess films I'd rank them as follows:
Brave>Tangled>Princess and the Frog

 

[JustInTime]

Tangled wasn't up to Pixar quality. However if you compare it to recent Disney movies it compares more favorably. For recent princess films I'd rank them as follows:
Brave>Tangled>Princess and the Frog

Weird. Rotten Tomatos has Tangled at 90%. I felt it was more on par with classic Disney rather than Pixar. It's just a totally different film. I actually enjoyed PATF more though. I know, i'm the oddball.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Public companies and thier investors like to see growth, not a flat line. Increasing attendance is one way to push that growth. Also remember that the current attedance levels are partially driven by big hotel discounts and free dining plans. Disney would love to have a product that draws that same attendance level or more, without the discounts. That, IMHO, is the reason you want to increase attendance. How you achieve that increase is another discussion.

That's exactly right, IMHO. A big part of Iger's, (and any CEO's), legacy is how much they grew the business. When people talking in glowing terms about Steve Jobs, it was about how he grew Apple. Iger was giving a tour of Disneyland by Tony Baxter, and they discussed options for future growth. Such as, expanding Frontierland, Main Street, and the Tomorrowland project, in terms of both capacity and just plain having enough room on the walkways to soak up the growth.

The thing is that WDW will experience growth over the next decade, 1% a year is 10% over a decade. And this is just basal growth, in terms of the growing U.S. and world population, and the segment of those who are interested in going to WDW for a vacation. Who knows, FLE might draw in more guests to MK, when you look at the tallies for 2013/2014, though in terms of total capacity, MK will be stretched even more.

When you look at trying to squeeze Carsland into DHS's parking lot (or across from World Drive), versus building a whole new theme park, you can see why in terms of capacity, a new theme park could help relieve some of the pressure at MK. MK has the highest attendance of all Disney's stateside parks, yet much fewer rides than Disneyland. I think that a park (5th gate) which is physically close to MK would be the best option, especially since you could add trams/boats between the two parks. (I'm talking about the already established expansion pad east of TTC).

Of course, the new park wouldn't be a full-size park just yet. I figure they'd spend $600 million for Carsland, $200 million for some sort of Main Street, plus $600 for a Star Wars land, and they look at adding a Marvel area later. They could even go with a "Villain's park" type main street, have Malificent's castle in addition to a medieval-ish main street that would rival WWHP and be based certain Disney films such as the new Malificent film, Sword in the Stone, Tangled . . . lot's of exciting possiblities. Who knows? They could even put in a Burton-land with a NBC-HMH type ride, in addition to other stuff.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Weird. Rotten Tomatos has Tangled at 90%. I felt it was more on par with classic Disney rather than Pixar. It's just a totally different film. I actually enjoyed PATF more though. I know, i'm the oddball.

I watchd PATF several times, really love that film, didn't really enjoy Tangled as much, so you're not alone.

 

[danlb_2000]

That's exactly right, IMHO. A big part of Iger's, (and any CEO's), legacy is how much they grew the business. When people talking in glowing terms about Steve Jobs, it was about how he grew Apple. Iger was giving a tour of Disneyland by Tony Baxter, and they discussed options for future growth. Such as, expanding Frontierland, Main Street, and the Tomorrowland project, in terms of both capacity and just plain having enough room on the walkways to soak up the growth.

The thing is that WDW will experience growth over the next decade, 1% a year is 10% over a decade. And this is just basal growth, in terms of the growing U.S. and world population, and the segment of those who are interested in going to WDW for a vacation. Who knows, FLE might draw in more guests to MK, when you look at the tallies for 2013/2014, though in terms of total capacity, MK will be stretched even more.

When you look at trying to squeeze Carsland into DHS's parking lot (or across from World Drive), versus building a whole new theme park, you can see why in terms of capacity, a new theme park could help relieve some of the pressure at MK. MK has the highest attendance of all Disney's stateside parks, yet much fewer rides than Disneyland. I think that a park (5th gate) which is physically close to MK would be the best option, especially since you could add trams/boats between the two parks. (I'm talking about the already established expansion pad east of TTC).

Of course, the new park wouldn't be a full-size park just yet. I figure they'd spend $600 million for Carsland, $200 million for some sort of Main Street, plus $600 for a Star Wars land, and they look at adding a Marvel area later. They could even go with a "Villain's park" type main street, have Malificent's castle in addition to a medieval-ish main street that would rival WWHP and be based certain Disney films such as the new Malificent film, Sword in the Stone, Tangled . . . lot's of exciting possiblities. Who knows? They could even put in a Burton-land with a NBC-HMH type ride, in addition to other stuff.

There has been no discussion of squeezing Cardland into a parking lot. Everything that has been reported says it will take the place of LMA and the Backlot tour, two attractions that have really run their course.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I enjoy Tangled to an extent (and I enjoy it slightly more with every subsequent watch), but yeah I like Princess and the Frog more for the most part. Also like Meet the Robinsons more as well, which is probably my favorite movie made entirely by Disney in the past decade (not counting Pixar). I don't think Tangled lives up to the 90's Disney animated films either. It tries but doesn't quite make it. It's a solid movie, but i'd still put most of what Pixar has made above it.

What held Tangled back for me was probably its numerous attempts to be "hip" to this day and age. This is something Beauty and the Beast tried to avoid for instance and why it will probably age like fine wine over the years. And besides the woman who voiced Mother Gothel, didn't care for too many of the singers either. The overall musical score wasn't quite up there with the likes of the 90's Disney movies. Fun songs but nothing to compete with magnificent pieces like Circle of Life, Be Our Guest, Tale as Old as Time, A Whole New World, Bells of Notre Dame, Hellfire, etc etc. And lastly, I also felt the town scene with Rapunzel and Flynn (the one where they have fun before the lanterns) was rushed, along with parts of the last quarter of the movie.

 

[danlb_2000]

I enjoy Tangled to an extent (and I enjoy it slightly more with every subsequent watch), but yeah I like Princess and the Frog more for the most part. Also like Meet the Robinsons more as well, which is probably my favorite movie made entirely by Disney in the past decade (not counting Pixar). I don't think Tangled lives up to the 90's Disney animated films either. It tries but doesn't quite make it. It's a solid movie, but i'd still put most of what Pixar has made above it.

What held Tangled back for me was probably its numerous attempts to be "hip" to this day and age. This is something Beauty and the Beast tried to avoid for instance and why it will probably age like fine wine over the years. And besides the woman who voiced Mother Gothel, didn't care for too many of the singers either. The overall musical score wasn't quite up there with the likes of the 90's Disney movies. Fun songs but nothing to compete with magnificent pieces like Circle of Life, Be Our Guest, Tale as Old as Time, A Whole New World, Bells of Notre Dame, Hellfire, etc etc. And lastly, I also felt the town scene with Rapunzel and Flynn (the one where they have fun before the lanterns) was rushed, along with parts of the last quarter of the movie.

I forgot Meet the Robinsons was a Disney movie, really liked that one. Me and my co-worker often use the " I have a big head and little arms. I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through." quote for things in work that weren't quite thought out.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

There has been no discussion of squeezing Cardland into a parking lot. Everything that has been reported says it will take the place of LMA and the Backlot tour, two attractions that have really run their course.

The official Reedy Creek future development plan looks at utilizing space in parking lots for expansion, and even the possibility of parking garages. When it comes to DHS, official expansion pads are the parking lot, and across World Drive though they admit that would be a little difficult. There are no plans for redevelopment of existing developments inside of DHS.

I think, honestly, that fans look at DCA and assume that something would be torn out of DHS to build Carsland there. Carsland was built on a parking lot, and BVS involved removing store facades on Sunshine Plaza. So, yes, it would be unprecedented in terms of totally removing 1/3 of DHS to build something new.

Makes more sense to build Carsland elsewhere, and to retool/reimagine the backlot, especially since this wouldn't involve shutting down 1/3 of DHS for three years. Remember, DCA had construction walls, but attraction capacity wasn't decreased as it was a parking lot that was lost, in terms of Carsland.

I think fans of WDW like to think that DHS is having massive problems, when in fact it is a profitable park pulling in about 10 million guests a year. Much different from where DCA was. And some folks seem to conveniently ignore the real fact that if you closed the backlot and other attractions, that yes, it would decrease park capacity and this would mean less guests, and less $$.

So, yes, if they build Carsland at DHS (a big if considering Star Wars, Avatarland), it would be in the parking lot, and they would probably build a parking garage for DHS.

 

[Mike730]

The official Reedy Creek future development plan looks at utilizing space in parking lots for expansion, and even the possibility of parking garages. When it comes to DHS, official expansion pads are the parking lot, and across World Drive though they admit that would be a little difficult. There are no plans for redevelopment of existing developments inside of DHS.

I think, honestly, that fans look at DCA and assume that something would be torn out of DHS to build Carsland there. Carsland was built on a parking lot, and BVS involved removing store facades on Sunshine Plaza. So, yes, it would be unprecedented in terms of totally removing 1/3 of DHS to build something new.

Makes more sense to build Carsland elsewhere, and to retool/reimagine the backlot, especially since this wouldn't involve shutting down 1/3 of DHS for three years. Remember, DCA had construction walls, but attraction capacity wasn't decreased as it was a parking lot that was lost, in terms of Carsland.

I think fans of WDW like to think that DHS is having massive problems, when in fact it is a profitable park pulling in about 10 million guests a year. Much different from where DCA was. And some folks seem to conveniently ignore the real fact that if you closed the backlot and other attractions, that yes, it would decrease park capacity and this would mean less guests, and less $$.

So, yes, if they build Carsland at DHS (a big if considering Star Wars, Avatarland), it would be in the parking lot, and they would probably build a parking garage for DHS.

Dude.
No.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Dude.
No.

Dude. Yes. That's the official Reedy Creek development plan.

 

[danlb_2000]

Dude. Yes. That's the official Reedy Creek development plan.

The development plan is a just a high level plan for how land can be effectively used. I have looked at it before and I have never seen anything in it about how the space already occupied by attractions can be used. Nothing in the plan precludes Disney from removing LMA and replacing it with Carsland.

 

[FrankLapidus]

Dude. Yes. That's the official Reedy Creek development plan.

There will be no fifth gate any time soon, no matter how much you keep talking about it. If and when it happens, Cars Land will go to DHS and it will more than likely replace the Backlot/LMA area. If it's done as well as it was in California, Cars Land will be a money-spinner for DHS in Orlando.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

The development plan is a just a high level plan for how land can be effectively used. I have looked at it before and I have never seen anything in it about how the space already occupied by attractions can be used. Nothing in the plan precludes Disney from removing LMA and replacing it with Carsland.

The plan is a roadmap that looks at suitability of land, and describes, in depth, the possibilities for development inside and outside of the major parks. It is, in essence, a feasibility summary in terms of future development, and yes, it talks about development inside of existing parks, such as Epcot, DHS and others. You would need to remove LMA & Backlot to squeeze in Carsland.

When the decision to build a fifth gate is made, it will be a "high level" decision, and will be based on prior feasibility studies, which are summarized in the Reedy Creek report.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

There will be no fifth gate any time soon, no matter how much you keep talking about it. If and when it happens, Cars Land will go to DHS and it will more than likely replace the Backlot/LMA area. If it's done as well as it was in California, Cars Land will be a money-spinner for DHS in Orlando.

I seriously doubt that.

 

[danlb_2000]

The plan is a roadmap that looks at suitability of land, and describes, in depth, the possibilities for development inside and outside of the major parks. It is, in essence, a feasibility summary in terms of future development, and yes, it talks about development inside of existing parks, such as Epcot, DHS and others. You would need to remove LMA & Backlot to squeeze in Carsland.

When the decision to build a fifth gate is made, it will be a "high level" decision, and will be based on prior feasibility studies, which are summarized in the Reedy Creek report.

Can you please provide a reference to where in the plan this is discussed?

 

[danlb_2000]

I seriously doubt that.

So you are dismissing what has been said by people who have pretty good track records for inside information?

 

[FrankLapidus]

I seriously doubt that.

You're pretty much the only one who does. If there is going to be a fifth gate, it will not happen anytime soon and if Cars Land does happen, it will go to DHS.

 

[Ignohippo]

The official Reedy Creek future development plan looks at utilizing space in parking lots for expansion, and even the possibility of parking garages. When it comes to DHS, official expansion pads are the parking lot, and across World Drive though they admit that would be a little difficult. There are no plans for redevelopment of existing developments inside of DHS.

I think, honestly, that fans look at DCA and assume that something would be torn out of DHS to build Carsland there. Carsland was built on a parking lot, and BVS involved removing store facades on Sunshine Plaza. So, yes, it would be unprecedented in terms of totally removing 1/3 of DHS to build something new.

Makes more sense to build Carsland elsewhere, and to retool/reimagine the backlot, especially since this wouldn't involve shutting down 1/3 of DHS for three years. Remember, DCA had construction walls, but attraction capacity wasn't decreased as it was a parking lot that was lost, in terms of Carsland.

I think fans of WDW like to think that DHS is having massive problems, when in fact it is a profitable park pulling in about 10 million guests a year. Much different from where DCA was. And some folks seem to conveniently ignore the real fact that if you closed the backlot and other attractions, that yes, it would decrease park capacity and this would mean less guests, and less $$.

So, yes, if they build Carsland at DHS (a big if considering Star Wars, Avatarland), it would be in the parking lot, and they would probably build a parking garage for DHS.

CarsLand was designed to fit perfectly into the corner of the park where LMA and the BLT are now. If you place a satellite pic of CarsLand at DCA onto that area, it fits perfectly. The streets even line up! That isn't by coincidence.

Besides, it would also add to Pixar Place. While they may eventually expand DHS into the parking lot, they wouldn't for CarsLand.