News Disney Not Renewing Great Movie Ride Sponsorship Deal with TCM ; Attraction to Close

[doctornick]

I still contend that it's totally cool for parks to have differentiating factors and for DHS to be "show-heavy" in terms of its attractions. So, yeah, having a bunch of stuff like the stunt show, sing along, Muppetvision, Disney Jr, BatB and the Little Mermaid plus the spectaculars at night. All good. The thing is that even a "show heavy" park should have something like 12-15 rides at a minimum. That's the problem (and endemic to WDW except for MK). A "normal" park which is more ride heavy would be expected to have more like 20-30 rides.

Furthermore, being show heavy is fine, but more of the shows should be continuous stuff (think Muppetvision or the likes of the Tiki Birds/Country Bears) as opposed to having schedules and fewer shows. Part of the reason it does take a full day or longer to "do everything" is because it's tough to go to everything without having downtown waiting for a show to begin or having to criss cross the park to make the times work.

 

[peter11435]

. And Disney can easily make up for 23,000,000 and that's just a random number and probably not even close but I don't argue numbers with people.ll

Lol

 

[xstech25]

Let's not humor for a minute that Disney somehow cannot afford to update the attraction and build a new ride? Half of the Animation building is there for use as well. The Great Movie Ride embodies the literal theme of the direction they are taking the park. Entering the movies. In fact it's even more relavent today then it was in 1989. And Disney can easily make up for 23,000,000 and that's just a random number and probably not even close but I don't argue numbers with people. Saying the ride is old is not an excuse, not at all

The difference is you are talking about what you want the park to do, and I am talking about diminishing returns.

 

[doctornick]

Regarding the new Mickey ride and location, I had a thought as to what would have been the best location IMHO given the operational concerns at play... it should have replaced the Little Mermaid show. Now, obviously, it wouldn't fit in that space alone, but they could have closed that attraction, gutted the building and used the existing space for the queue while adding a show building as needed in what is currently backstage behind it. There's plenty of room back there.

Why would this have worked? To wit:

1. Keeps Launch Bay open until Star Wars land opens. You know that Disney wants to keep the SW presence.
2. Keeps GMR running to keep up the ride count
3. Little Mermaid is going to be replaced (I hope!) anyway. Might as well add something that would have wider appeal and more repeat value.
3b. If capacity is a concern due to losing that show, they can put some sort of comparable entertainment during the day in the "flex theater" near RNR. Does anything even run there regularly?
4. Has a thematic fit, putting the Mickey ride next to the exhibit on Walt. Not to mention, if they plan to keep/return Animation Courtyard to that theme (replacing Launch Bay with something animation related again), a Mickey ride is a perfect fit.

I don't think this idea ever came up but I think it's a better solution than what they are going with.

 

[Biff215]

Regarding the new Mickey ride and location, I had a thought as to what would have been the best location IMHO given the operational concerns at play... it should have replaced the Little Mermaid show. Now, obviously, it wouldn't fit in that space alone, but they could have closed that attraction, gutted the building and used the existing space for the queue while adding a show building as needed in what is currently backstage behind it. There's plenty of room back there.

Why would this have worked? To wit:

1. Keeps Launch Bay open until Star Wars land opens. You know that Disney wants to keep the SW presence.
2. Keeps GMR running to keep up the ride count
3. Little Mermaid is going to be replaced (I hope!) anyway. Might as well add something that would have wider appeal and more repeat value.
3b. If capacity is a concern due to losing that show, they can put some sort of comparable entertainment during the day in the "flex theater" near RNR. Does anything even run there regularly?
4. Has a thematic fit, putting the Mickey ride next to the exhibit on Walt. Not to mention, if they plan to keep/return Animation Courtyard to that theme (replacing Launch Bay with something animation related again), a Mickey ride is a perfect fit.

I don't think this idea ever came up but I think it's a better solution than what they are going with.

That could work, assuming TSL isn't in the way. As many of us have said, animation courtyard is the best place for Mickey, and it could be done while keeping Launch Bay open. The problem is Disney prefers to replace, saving both construction and labor costs.

A good question is what is Disney's plan for the animation area once the dust settles? This area will be an even bigger mess once Launch Bay closes (assuming it does). It just shows you that TSL and SWL are hardly the end of the problems at DHS.

 

[Rob562]

Regarding the new Mickey ride and location, I had a thought as to what would have been the best location IMHO given the operational concerns at play... it should have replaced the Little Mermaid show. Now, obviously, it wouldn't fit in that space alone, but they could have closed that attraction, gutted the building and used the existing space for the queue while adding a show building as needed in what is currently backstage behind it. There's plenty of room back there.

Why would this have worked? To wit:

1. Keeps Launch Bay open until Star Wars land opens. You know that Disney wants to keep the SW presence.
2. Keeps GMR running to keep up the ride count
3. Little Mermaid is going to be replaced (I hope!) anyway. Might as well add something that would have wider appeal and more repeat value.
3b. If capacity is a concern due to losing that show, they can put some sort of comparable entertainment during the day in the "flex theater" near RNR. Does anything even run there regularly?
4. Has a thematic fit, putting the Mickey ride next to the exhibit on Walt. Not to mention, if they plan to keep/return Animation Courtyard to that theme (replacing Launch Bay with something animation related again), a Mickey ride is a perfect fit.

I don't think this idea ever came up but I think it's a better solution than what they are going with.

They'd have to rework One Man's Dream too (since you imply it'd be staying). One Man's Dream wraps around the Little Mermaid theater with the OMD theater directly between Mermaid and the area you want to build a ride building.

-Rob

 

[Kman101]

The difference is you are talking about what you want the park to do, and I am talking about diminishing returns.

Maybe so but if the parks updated attractions they wouldn't need to replace them. They shouldn't be allowed to become dated. It's not exactly what we want but the parks DO need MORE to do. They need added capacity not replacements. There are people at DHS or the company who know they need more things to do, this has been admitted internally and confirmed by our insiders.

Not trying to argue your points, I get exactly what you're saying but they shouldn't have gotten into the situation where they feel they need to replace something.

We all know they replace something so they don't have to spend money to update and by replacing attractions instead of adding new ones they can keep the operations budget the same and move it from one to the next.

 

[xstech25]

No they would still replace them because the cost to operate passes the point of diminishing returns.

 

[xstech25]

Also a lot of times rides aren't updated are because they are on the chopping block. I'm sure Backlot Tour, Universe of Energy, Imagination, etc have been on the chopping block for a long time. However with New Fantasyland, Avatar, Toy Story, and Star Wars, these projects are all purposely spaced out in a way to keep people coming back without spending too much money at the same time.

 

[Kman101]

Also a lot of times rides aren't updated are because they are on the chopping block. I'm sure Backlot Tour, Universe of Energy, Imagination, etc have been on the chopping block for a long time. However with New Fantasyland, Avatar, Toy Story, and Star Wars, these projects are all purposely spaced out in a way to keep people coming back without spending too much money at the same time.

That's pretty obvious LOL. It's still not an excuse IMHO but I get it.

And most of us know why they space out projects. $$$. Again, I don't blame them but it's also frustrating the way they operate.

And can you explain more about "diminshed returns"?

 

[xstech25]

Basically what i'm trying to say is that yes, obviously they have enough space to build whatever anyone could possibly want. However a lot of times it makes sense to take things out to build things because when you add the additional operating cost on top of what was already there it's too much money. The park loses money off the expansion (not because of the expansion itself but because of the overall operating cost of the park has greatly increased).

 

[Mike S]

Basically what i'm trying to say is that yes, obviously they have enough space to build whatever anyone could possibly want. However a lot of times it makes sense to take things out to build things because when you add the additional operating cost on top of what was already there it's too much money. The park loses money off the expansion.

And since it's Walt Disney World (you know, one of the most popular vacation spots on the planet) they would easily make it back.

 

[Kman101]

Basically what i'm trying to say is that yes, obviously they have enough space to build whatever anyone could possibly want. However a lot of times it makes sense to take things out to build things because when you add the additional operating cost on top of what was already there it's too much money. The park loses money off the expansion (not because of the expansion itself but because of the overall operating cost of the park has greatly increased).

Thank you! That makes sense.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Well, when they're 30 years old with little repeat value... Those should've been the first to be updated. Would've helped soothe the transition. Any insiders suppose we'll hear any updates regarding those soon? Last I heard, Beauty was getting updated and Mermaid would be replaced with Tangled? Not really fond of either of those ideas but..

How does the attraction count increase? We lost Lights Motors, jack sparrow, backlot tour. We're gaining one. But people count it differently I guess. Either way it's still a poor amount. You could say the two SW rides replace Motors and Backlot and one of the TSL rides replaced Jack. An attraction is an attraction to me regardless of whether you rode it or sat for it or walked through it.

In DHS's defense, it wasn't meant to be a park with a lot of rides. It was about touring an actual studio. Then it became show-heavy as the active studios were removed. Disney has been slow to do something about that change in focus. And they've been slow to update a lot of the shows. But there will be more coming than what had been in place before:

Rides

• Back Lot Tour (closed Sep 2014)

1. Toy Story Mania (replaced Millionaire, and was expanded with a third track May 27, 2016)
2. Rock N Rollercoaster
3. Tower of Terror
4. The Great Movie Ride (slightly updated recently) - Coming Soon: Mickey Mouse Ride
   
5. Star Tours (updated with Jakku & BB8; will be updated with Episode 8 [planet of Crait] and Episode 9 scenes)
6. Coming Soon: Slinky Coaster
7. Coming Soon: Alien Saucer Spin
8. Coming Soon: Alcatraz - SW Battle Escape
9. Coming Soon: Big Bird - SW Millennial Falcon

Shows, Pre-Star Wars

• Car Stunt Show (Lights...) (closed April 2, 2016)
• Mulch, Sweat & Shears
• Muppet 3D
• Frozen Singalong & Comedy Show (new theater, permanent now, replaced American Idol, adult-friendly)
• Indiana Jones Stunt Show
• Little Mermaid Musical
• Beauty and the Beast Musical
• Fantasmic!
• Disney Jr. (for the kids)
• Citizens of Hollywood (street show)
• Jedi Academy (updated, fun to watch just as a show)
• Temporary Doctor Strange Steetmosphere

Shows, Post-Star Wars [Added since Dec 2015]

• SW Fireworks [And then upgraded with projection show in June]
• Capt. Phasma with Troopers March and Show of Force
• Star Wars Stage Show (replaced Dance Party which replaced Big Hat)
• Music of Pixar
• Disney Movie Magic

Displays -- Passive and Interactive

• Path of the Jedi Short Movie (in flex space replacing Sounds Dangerous)
• One Man's Dream (the movie portion may be temporarily replaced by a theatrical preview)
• Launch Bay (replaced Animation Studio)
• Club Disney Dance Party & Special Events (in the newly added Sunset Showcase venue) [Dance Party on hiatus... may come back. Club Villain on select nights (extra cost ticket)]
• Shrunken Playground (closed May 2016)
• Osborn Lights Seasonal Show (not coming back as Streets of America is a closed off construction zone)
• Jingle BAM Fireworks & Projection Seasonal Show (no longer displacing the SW fireworks)

Meet & Greets

• Star Wars: Chewie, Kylo, Storm Troopers, Jawas (make sure you have a trinket to trade), BB-8
  
• Hollywood Mickey & Minnie (replaced Sorcerer Mickey in Sound Stage 4 which replaced the guest lounge which replaced Captain Jack Sparrow which replaced Narnia, etc...)
• Olaf
• Pixar characters (Woody, Buzz, in Pixar Way)
• Green Army Men Boot Camp streetmosphere
  
• Disney Jr. (Doc, Jake, Sophia)
• Character Meals at Hollywood & Vine (Disney Jr. for breakfast and lunch, Fab Four for dinner)
• Chip & Dale, Goofy, Donald, Daisy,
  
• Usually a M&G in One Man's Dream, currently Star Lord & Baby Groot
• Coming Soon: Character from Cars 3
• Characterpaloozas
  
• Phineas & Ferb; Mike and Sully [Characters were in the way of construction]

 

[YodaMan]

Meet & Greets

• Star Wars: Chewie, Kylo, Storm Troopers, Jawas (make sure you have a trinket to trade), BB-8
  
• Hollywood Mickey & Minnie (replaced Sorcerer Mickey in Sound Stage 4 which replaced the guest lounge which replaced Captain Jack Sparrow which replaced Narnia, etc...)
• Olaf
• Pixar characters (Woody, Buzz, in Pixar Way)
• Green Army Men Boot Camp streetmosphere
  
• Disney Jr. (Doc, Jake, Sophia)
• Character Meals at Hollywood & Vine (Disney Jr. for breakfast and lunch, Fab Four for dinner)
• Cars; Phineas & Ferb; Mike and Sully [Characters were in the way of construction]

You're forgetting Chip, Dale, Goofy, Donald, Daisy, Star Lord, and the soon-to-be-added character from Cars 3.

 

[MisterPenguin]

You're forgetting Chip, Dale, Goofy, Donald, Daisy, Star Lord, and the soon-to-be-added character from Cars 3.

Thanks for the catch! Editing...

 

[xstech25]

And since it's Walt Disney World (you know, one of the most popular vacation spots on the planet) they would easily make it back.

Yea...I mean that's why WDW has way more than any other Disney property: 4 parks, 2 waterparks, by far the biggest [Downtown Disney type thing], ESPN, and by far the most hotels. Just because WDW has higher attendance because it is the flagship Disney vacation spot doesn't make the law of diminishing returns not applicable.

And I know what you're going to say next is: "in the 80s and 90s they built way more than they do now therefore this management is cheap." Yea back then the property was way under-developed and Eisner realized that when he came in, hence why he added so much in such a short time. Disney does an insane amount of research to see how expansions and possibly another park would impact length of stay and revenues (if another park is added how much business would it add vs. cannibalizing business from another park).

I'm not trying to be the grinch, just to me it's extremely obvious why taking out attractions much of the time is a smarter thing to do than keep and update them.

 

[Mike S]

Yea...I mean that's why WDW has way more than any other Disney property: 4 parks, 2 waterparks, by far the biggest [Downtown Disney type thing], ESPN, and by far the most hotels. Just because WDW has higher attendance because it is the flagship Disney vacation spot doesn't make the law of diminishing returns not applicable.

And I know what you're going to say next is: "in the 80s and 90s they built way more than they do now therefore this management is cheap." Yea back then the property was way under-developed and Eisner realized that when he came in, hence why he added so much in such a short time. Disney does an insane amount of research to see how expansions and possibly another park would impact length of stay and revenues (if another park is added how much business would it add vs. cannibalizing business from another park). I'm not trying to be the grinch but I am trying to point out people should think about things before they saying them. It's extremely obvious why taking out the Backlot Tour and LMA is a smarter thing to do than keep and update them.

By all means rip out BLT and LMA (which they did). What they don't need to do is replace GMR with Mickey. That could be a new build.

Oh, and you forgot that in the 80's and 90's they were a lot smaller of a company than the behemoth they are now. Strange how they could build more back then when you know that little factoid isn't it?

 

[xstech25]

You are completely ignoring what I just said, but ok.

 

[Mike S]

You are completely ignoring what I just said, but ok.

Not really. What you're trying to say is that Disney can't afford it and frankly that's asinine. They have more money than god.