Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
This guy is saying what we all know, Movies and streaming are losers and the parks make money.
This is obvious and everyone knows this.
I think you are misinterpreting my expectations. Money will be spent, there will be physical things to point to, but it won't be as splashy as the spin would imply.FFS you don't file 8-K statements just to create marketing spin.
You're describing a felony.
This is the problem with having outside investors so vested in a company.
They want return on their investment and they don't want it 1, 2 or 5 years from now. They want to turn a profit constantly.
Disney is looking at how to maintain and grow their theme business over the long term.
Give us rides for the existing counties.New ports.
Expansion pads located in the parks located in the regions of the world.
I agree with that.
People crap all over Lightning McQueen's Racing Academy but you know what? It has an awesome AA, it's air conditioned, little boys who are too short for RnRC love it, it was reasonably inexpensive to build and operate, and it kills 20 minutes.
Yeah I'm not saying it's a creative masterpiece, but operationally it's what the (non-MK) parks need.it's not a great location and sort of misplaced next to the less family friends RnRC
if they could turn that whole area into a Cars area or make it part of a large Pixar expansion it would be better
but things *like* this are important to each park - heck things like Journey of Water are important to each park (the later is just getting too much build up for what it is meant to be)
I tend to agree but the tucked away location lessens the utility. But yeah more stuff like that.Yeah I'm not saying it's a creative masterpiece, but operationally it's what the (non-MK) parks need.
I think WDS (correctly) scared the company off of making companion parks for the sake of making them. Let’s say the current standard (a grim standard) is somewhere between 8-12 major attractions at the opening of a main gate (8 actually feels generous, much less 12). I think if less than half of that $17B went directly to attraction development in florida, that would net you something like 8 - $1B attractions or (likely) some other permutation. Why people would want the company to develop an indefinite capital and operational commitment when instead they could put those commitments to individual attractions inside existing parks, i will never understand.Please note...
No 5th Gate.Disneyland forward is not creating a 3rd gate.Parks with only one park are not creating a 2nd gate.No new Disneylands elsewhere in the world.For now.
There is no “ideal” but to answer it would be as needed….What would be your ideal level of investment into WDW in 10 years beyond normal operating costs? 1 new land a year? 1 new land every other year? 2 per year? 1 hotel every 3? Transportation upgrades once a decade? 1 ride update per year?
Just curious.
This guy is saying what we all know, Movies and streaming are losers and the parks make money.
This is obvious and everyone knows this.
Seems like it.Is this going to hold true for visual media? Is Disney effectively going to end up creating movies and TV shows as advertisement for higher return areas of consumer products and vacations?
I can't see how a new park can't be apart of this 60 billion investment in just ten years...
I'm not saying this is going to be WDW's 5th gate, but maybe this includes Shanghai's second park???
Or maybe WDS actually gets more than a frozen land around their new lake, lol
They're just switching the theme of one of the lands. It's still coming as it was, it got delayed due to pandemic.The scaling back in Paris is pretty poor.
Massive expansion with 2-3 lands has turned into a massive landscape addition with a Frozen land with one average ride and a Tangled Carrousel.
I think WDS (correctly) scared the company off of making companion parks for the sake of making them. Let’s say the current standard (a grim standard) is somewhere between 8-12 major attractions at the opening of a main gate (8 actually feels generous, much less 12). I think if less than half of that $17B went directly to attraction development in florida, that would net you something like 8 - $1B attractions or (likely) some other permutation. Why people would want the company to develop an indefinite capital and operational commitment when instead they could put those commitments to individual attractions inside existing parks, i will never understand.
Personally, the numbers aren't wildly unbelievable to me (especially after Len broke it down that it's about 25% above normal). BUT, I do remain skeptical it happens to those numbers due to stock pressures. I also think people are kind of putting their "Believe it when I see it" idea to what is being built as opposed to the money spent. It's more about questioning if this will be some grand expansion as opposed to money spent to refurb/redo current rides (and thus not expanding capacity). Who knows, maybe stuff gets greenlit soon, and we are going to see some great new expansions in 2030.
Maybe there is legitimate DCL expansion planned, time to circle back to expansion at DLR... but I suspect that this is more puffed up, try to change the narrative, blue sky, wait for the ground situation to resolve than true ambition.
He's a shill, plain and simple. Reputation score: 0 out of 0 stars.you keep citing this guy.. and every post makes me find him less and less credible.
Anyone paying attention to the real news in the market today? (Psst.. F E D)
The second post is real Nostradamus kinda stuff. "Those that replace the shrinking revenue will end up on top" -- Fascinating!
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.