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

PuertoRekinSam

PuertoRekinSam

Well-Known Member
I am going to play devils advocate here... it's more than the cost of building to consider. The cost of upkeep (which we know Disney doesn't like) and the Cost of Staffing is also a factor. I had a thought the other day... people complain that the Cast are not as friendly/good as they used to be. A part of that can be associated to the training be demolished, part of it can be associated with leadership engagement, but part of it also has to be attributed to be sheer number of Cast required to staff everything. What are they up to now? 75K Cast members? When WDW opened it was 1 park and two hotels (camp grounds came later). Now it's 4 parks over 25 hotels, 2 water parks, Disney Springs, etc...

Unfortunately this means you are getting "some crop" mixed in with the cream. Now it seems the requirement is "have a pulse? Yep. You're qualified." Beggars can't be choosers after all, expanding would cause more of these less than stellar Cast joining the ranks diluting the brand further.... not that TDO is worried about that.
 
Bocabear

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
xstech25 said:
You all aren't paying any attention to what i'm saying. What I am saying is sometimes its smart to get rid of old rides for new ones because of diminishing returns. This has nothing to do with risk of building new rides. I've been trying to politely explain this for like 3 pages now, which sadly seems to have been a huge waste of time. Just because the park is crowded this doesn't mean nothing should ever get taken out. This is like basic business school 101 sh*t.
Click to expand...
Just because the park is crowded does not mean that nothing can ever be replaced, but because the park is mobbed, not crowded, they need to focus more on adding VS replacing... The parks need more attractions...not just replacements, and they have the money and they have the room....but as long as they have apologists that will accept and applaud them for doing nothing, why should they add anything?
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
Bocabear said:
Just because the park is crowded does not mean that nothing can ever be replaced, but because the park is mobbed, not crowded, they need to focus more on adding VS replacing... The parks need more attractions...not just replacements, and they have the money and they have the room....but as long as they have apologists that will accept and applaud them for doing nothing, why should they add anything?
Click to expand...
The only time replacing makes sense is if the thing being replaced was a giant waste of space like the BLT. GMR does not fall into that category. Neither did Tower in DCA or Maelstrom.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
xstech25 said:
You all aren't paying any attention to what i'm saying. What I am saying is sometimes its smart to get rid of old rides for new ones because of diminishing returns. This has nothing to do with risk of building new rides. I've been trying to politely explain this for like 3 pages now, which sadly seems to have been a huge waste of time. Just because the park is crowded this doesn't mean nothing should ever get taken out. This is like basic business school 101 sh*t.
Click to expand...
You're jumping all over the place and not making a consistent point. You're seemingly jumping between an attraction's cost per guest and overall costs without looking at the specific context of how a single price Ticket mode impacts these issues.
 
Cesar R M

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
Goofyernmost said:
What are the total numbers of attractions now and when those are done. Theme Parks are more then just rides, shows are also part of it. There's Indy, Muppets, Beauty and the Beast, Fantastic, Mermaid, Jedi Training, Restaurants, shops, street entertainment and I'm sure there are others that I am not remembering. Star Tours, at least for the moment and GMR.
Click to expand...
a lot of these shows gets boring after the 30th time.

VeroniqueB said:
And a BIG part of WDW selling point is nostalgia.
Click to expand...

They can easily replace one show based on nostalgia for something of the same caliber yet be new.

Example, replace beauty and the beast for Hunchback of Notre Dame's musical.
 
Last edited:
Tim Lohr

Tim Lohr

Well-Known Member
xstech25 said:
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).
Click to expand...
Awwweee... look at you trying to talk sense to these fanatics, I gave up doing on that, but every once in awhile these guys dig up an interesting blueprint, that's the only reason to visit this site ...not for conversation
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Cesar R M said:
a lot of these shows gets boring after the 30th time.
Click to expand...
We still have to remind ourselves that people that visit there that often are a huge minority. Believe this or not, some people can go just once in their lifetime and be OK with that and never feel slighted at all. And there are still millions and millions of people in the world and even in the states that have never seen it once. It is only old to those of us that have obsessed about the place and feel the need to go again and again and again. We are not the majority, by even a close margin. In other words, we don't pay the bills. We contribute a great deal to the bonus account, but, we do not support it. The fact that some of it is getting old, is really just our problem, it is not a problem for them.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
tl77 said:
Awwweee... look at you trying to talk sense to these fanatics, I gave up doing on that, but every once in awhile these guys dig up an interesting blueprint, that's the only reason to visit this site ...not for conversation
Click to expand...
Well, aren't you just the sweetest thing! I sure wish I was as smart as you are, cause then I could be much more condescending than I already am.
 
Last edited:
GiveMeTheMusic

GiveMeTheMusic

Well-Known Member
Goofyernmost said:
We still have to remind ourselves that people that visit there that often are a huge minority. Believe this or not, some people can go just once in their lifetime and be OK with that and never feel slighted at all. And there are still millions and millions of people in the world and even in the states that have never seen it once. It is only old to those of us that have obsessed about the place and feel the need to go again and again and again. We are not the majority, by even a close margin. In other words, we don't pay the bills. We contribute a great deal to the bonus account, but, we do not support it. The fact that some of it is getting old, is really just our problem, it is not a problem for them.
Click to expand...

The amount of guests who are truly once-in-a-lifetime guests is much smaller than you seem to think, but TDO thanks you for excusing their lack of will to replace shows that are pushing 30 years old.
 
ToTBellHop

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
xstech25 said:
You all aren't paying any attention to what i'm saying. What I am saying is sometimes its smart to get rid of old rides for new ones because of diminishing returns. This has nothing to do with risk of building new rides. I've been trying to politely explain this for like 3 pages now, which sadly seems to have been a huge waste of time. Just because the park is crowded this doesn't mean nothing should ever get taken out. This is like basic business school 101 sh*t.
Click to expand...
Yes, and MBAs are what got WDW into its current sh*tstorm.

Somehow Disneyland, which is jam-packed with rides, will get two new E-tickets at the expense of goats. The idea that DHS will not receive adequate returns for actual expansion is patently false. A park 9-years younger has higher attendance and DHS's guest satisfaction rates are unacceptably low. The current projects will help but they will find more is necessary. Like they did when they decided to build a third TSMM track. Maybe we will get Mission Breakout next to ToT?!
 
Haymarket2008

Haymarket2008

Well-Known Member
MansionButler84 said:
Yes, and MBAs are what got WDW into its current sh*tstorm.

Somehow Disneyland, which is jam-packed with rides, will get two new E-tickets at the expense of goats. The idea that DHS will not receive adequate returns for actual expansion is patently false. A park 9-years younger has higher attendance and DHS's guest satisfaction rates are unacceptably low. The current projects will help but they will find more is necessary. Like they did when they decided to build a third TSMM track. Maybe we will get Mission Breakout next to ToT?!
Click to expand...

Oh boy....please tell me a certain overlay of a certain rollercoaster is on the table.
 
jt04

jt04

Well-Known Member
xstech25 said:
You all aren't paying any attention to what i'm saying. What I am saying is sometimes its smart to get rid of old rides for new ones because of diminishing returns. This has nothing to do with risk of building new rides. I've been trying to politely explain this for like 3 pages now, which sadly seems to have been a huge waste of time. Just because the park is crowded this doesn't mean nothing should ever get taken out. This is like basic business school 101 sh*t.
Click to expand...

Well stated.
 
Phicinfan

Phicinfan

Well-Known Member
Not to be that guy....

But first, is there some reason this thread is not in the DHS sub-forum? Isn't this part of the restage of DHS?

Secondly, I get why everyone is for new vs. replacement. We all want new rides. I also from a perspective of working for a large corporation that is reliant on positive reviews from Stock holders understand why doing re-vamps vs. HUGE expenditures on new expansion makes sense.

Here is the key. I get Disney has more money than God. I also get that if they just explode and spend billions on huge expansion of the parks that the Stock Holders will REALLY want to see value. The other key is this...... some of these re-vamps are desperately needed. I get wanting totally new, but to get totally new while other rides and buildings continue to rot makes no sense to me. Yes I would love expansion in MK, but if we can get something really cool in SGE and some much needed love in CoP and Jungle Cruise then I am all for it. Then if they replace Speedway with a totally new ride or two...again, that makes a ton of sense then just building one expansion and leaving those issues. Just because Disney has money to burn, does not mean they can burn that money. SWE if done as well as Pandora will knock folks socks off, and make the swing back from Uni to Disney again. Heck, Pandora may be enough for that anyway. Would I love 3 rides in SWE, yes, but the budget is so huge as it is, what would have been sacrificed?
 
Dragonrider1227

Dragonrider1227

Well-Known Member
Frankly, I'm convinced they simply have run into legal fee issues with the actor likenesses or the rights to certain movies and rather than pay up what the owners want, Disney's decided to retheme it to something they know they don't and will never have to pay for. Mickey Mouse!
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom