Disney Playing catch up with Universal... Potter Disney's biggest mistake in 20 years...

[DinoInstitute]

too hyped imho. also the movie was very good, but too crammed.. It had hardly the same flawless pace of the first.
As I posted somewhere else .. 3/4 of the movie was perfect, until the drago subplot went full force.

Never been a dragons fan, it seemed like it was too serious storyline and dramatic for kids, but for adults rather laughable

 

[wdisney9000]

Two totally different target audiences here, so this is not a very great example at all.

I do not think you could be more wrong. These are both themed environments that any person looking to be immersed could enjoy. As so many people point out in regards to Avatar Land, it doesn't matter what the IP is, if it's themed properly, people will enjoy it.

Both of my nephews (7 & 10, boys) could care less about Little Mermaid or Snow White but they enjoy FLE. They could care less about Potter As well, they only watched the first movie, yet after watching some vids about DA my sister is booking a trip next month to check out Uni. They're (my nephews) already excited about picking out a wand and buying "crazy turtle candy", as they call it.. I'm soooooooo going with them also. Glad I have a friend that works for Loews.

There's people watching the World Cup right now that could care less about soccer. It's just cool to be watching it. People will visit Uni just to check out what all the fuss is about. Kinda the same way people did with Disneyland all those years ago.

 

[CinematicFusion]

Never been a dragons fan, it seemed like it was too serious storyline and dramatic for kids, but for adults rather laughable

Really. I enjoyed How to Train Your Dragon. That's what we are talking about right? Thought the music was fantastic and they did a good job with the relationship between the Dragon and the boy. It received a 98% from Rotten Tomatoes.

I guess I found the two percent who didn't like it.
That's cool, not every movie works for everyone. I didn't buy into a sequel though. I felt the first movie finished it's thought rather nicely. Feel the same way about Frozen. They don't need to make a sequel...they will of course.

 

[ParentsOf4]

can I be both? I had a blast two weeks ago but understand they have dropped the ball and have let dhs, dak, and epcot slip

Ask yourself a simple question:

Is WDW the best it's ever been?

Your answer to this question determines whether you are a "WDW is" or a "WDW was" person.

All the discussion about Universal is just a sideshow to The Main Event.

This is, after all, a WDW fansite.

 

[Cesar R M]

Never been a dragons fan, it seemed like it was too serious storyline and dramatic for kids, but for adults rather laughable

I actually hated that part.. imagine recovering something you lost a long time ago then losing another part of your life.. the whole super happy then super sad.. then super happy back and fort ruined many movies.
The atrocious ATTACK OF THE CLONES was a fine example of this mistake(the anakin BS love drama)

 

[CinematicFusion]

Ask yourself a simple question:

Is WDW the best it's ever been?

Your answer to this question determines whether you are a "WDW is" or a "WDW was" person.

All the discussion about Universal is just a sideshow to The Main Event.

This is, after all, a WDW fansite.

Here is the thing about Disney World
No one will ever recreate the size and scope of the World. That part is truly amazing and is such a cool feeling when you enter Walt Disney World Resort. It feels like you have entered into another Land. No other theme park can recreate that feeling.
I love the how the grounds are maintained, it looks nice every time I go. The monorail still gets me, one of the coolest transportation devices ever made. I think Animal Kingdom might be one of the prettiest theme parks I've ever walked through...and I could go on about those details.

However...Disney needs to step their game up and build more rides. I understand rides breaking down, that is going to happen...but come one.
As an example:
Not fixing the Yetti at AK for over 8 years is silly.
If the problem is it's a complicated mess and would take time to fix and Disney doesn't want to close it's main draw at AK, I get that, I really do. You know what you could have done in those 8 years? Built a new e-ticket ride at AK so you can then work on Everest. Heck...you have had 8 years to build a new ride at AK. You should at minimum get a ride every 4 years per each theme park at Disney World. That would average to a new ride every year for Disney's flagship land.
Really... for 8 years a new ride hasn't been built at that park. Unreal. Avatar can't come fast enough.

 

[twebber55]

Ask yourself a simple question:

Is WDW the best it's ever been?

Your answer to this question determines whether you are a "WDW is" or a "WDW was" person.

All the discussion about Universal is just a sideshow to The Main Event.

This is, after all, a WDW fansite.

I bought dvc in 2008 so I really wasn't around in the 90's but ill take you guys word that its not what it was and my fear is where its going...one resort is trending a little more upward while the other stagnates my hope is that Pandora (which im a big fan of) is good and that star wars comes sooner rather than later

 

[wdisney9000]

I'm still popping a blood vessel. I dont care if theyre press photos or not, they look like ****.

I get such a detailed visual of you typing comments like this and your other comment (that seems to have been removed? ) All yelling at the screen with a prominent vein in your forehead. (In a good, hilarious way).

 

[tl77]

It does when you consider Disney was convinced that guests did not have the disposable income to spend more once inside the parks and that the Orlando market was as big as it could get. So yes, the success of Universal Orlando Resort does show Walt Disney World screwed up because they believed that what happened was impossible and abandoned the path they pioneered.


Strong guest spending can overcome a lot.

It's "empirical" data. And Flynn's analogy is right on the money.

Even then, that would not be the right word.

Just because you talk mince with conviction doesn't make it any less mince. Similarly over use of capitalisation doesn't establish the comment contained there in as fact, it makes the user appear a bit a of a bell end.

Since you're all so good at spelling, Here's a little thing called math...

In 2013 the Magic Kingdom's attendance was about 18mil people, Universal's IOA/Harry Potter park was about half that at 9mil, and Universal's original other park was about half of IOA at 4.5mil.

While no one can prove how many people only went to one or all of these places, the numbers seem indicate that half of that 9mil who went to IoA went to both Uni and IoA last year, and the other 4.5mil went some where else or went to IoA twice, or let's say the also went to the Magic Kingdom.

So if 4.5mil people in 2013 "only" went to the 2 Uni parks, and the other 4.5mil both Uni and MK, that means there were about 13.5mil people who "only" went to MK in 2013, and had no interest in Uni or Harry Potter. So are you implying that if Disney had built Harry Potter on their own property it would some how make it more popular than it is at UNI? Because that's seems to be the argument being made by this dumb article...

If roughly 13.5mil of Disney's guests didn't care to go see "Harry Potter-land part 1" last year, why would those same people suddenly want to go and see "HP-land part 2" this year? that doesn't make any sense, because there was about 18mil people who paid to get in MK last year, 11mil paid to get in Epcot, and 10mil at AK, and another 10mil at DHS, for a grand total of about 50 mil, and they also bought food and merch and rented a room and of that 50 mil, theoretically? in best case scenario? only 4.5mil, about 10% also went to see Harry Potter, and I'm assuming that more that 10% of the people who go one of WDW parks on vacation go some where "besides" WDW anyway.

People keep wanting to believe that because Harry Potter is very popular among "some" people that it is some how popular to "all" people. Star Wars is very popular among "some" people, but not "all" people want to pay the extra price to go to a Star Wars Weekend. There is a limit to how popular a movie or IP is, and how many people are interested in paying to experience it in a theme park

 

[Quinnmac000]

Here is the thing about Disney World
No one will ever recreate the size and scope of the World. That part is truly amazing and is such a cool feeling when you enter Walt Disney World Resort. It feels like you have entered into another Land. No other theme park can recreate that feeling.
I love the how the grounds are maintained, it looks nice every time I go. The monorail still gets me, one of the coolest transportation devices ever made. I think Animal Kingdom might be one of the prettiest theme parks I've ever walked through...and I could go on about those details.

However...Disney needs to step their game up and build more rides. I understand rides breaking down, that is going to happen...but come one.
As an example:
Not fixing the Yetti at AK for over 8 years is silly.
If the problem is it's a complicated mess and would take time to fix and Disney doesn't want to close it's main draw at AK, I get that, I really do. You know what you could have done in those 8 years? Built a new e-ticket ride at AK so you can then work on Everest. Heck...you have had 8 years to build a new ride at AK. You should at minimum get a ride every 4 years per each theme park at Disney World. That would average to a new ride every year for Disney's flagship land.
Really... for 8 years a new ride hasn't been built at that park. Unreal. Avatar can't come fast enough.

If they can't fix the Yeti, how the heck are the new crazy advance Navi AAs going to work.

 

[DinoInstitute]

If they can't fix the Yeti, how the heck are the new crazy advance Navi AAs going to work.

Oh, I think you know the answer to that

 

[Quinnmac000]

Here's a little thing called math...

In 2013 the Magic Kingdom's attendance was about 18mil people, Universal's IOA/Harry Potter park was about half that at 9mil, and Universal's original other park was about half of IOA at 4.5mil.

While no one can prove how many people only went to one or all of these places, the numbers seem indicate that half of that 9mil who went to IoA went to both Uni and IoA last year, and the other 4.5mil went some where else or went to IoA twice, or let's say the also went to the Magic Kingdom.

So if 4.5mil people in 2013 "only" went to the 2 Uni parks, and the other 4.5mil both Uni and MK, that means there were about 13.5mil people who "only" went to MK in 2013, and had no interest in Uni or Harry Potter. So are you implying that if Disney had built Harry Potter on their own property it would some how make it more popular than it is at UNI? Because that's seems to be the argument being made by this dumb article...

If roughly 13.5mil of Disney's guests didn't care to go see "Harry Potter-land part 1" last year, why would those same people suddenly want to go and see "HP-land part 2" this year? that doesn't make any sense, because there was about 18mil people who paid to get in MK last year, 11mil paid to get in Epcot, and 10mil at AK, and another 10mil at DHS, for a grand total of about 50 mil, and they also bought food and merch and rented a room and of that 50 mil, theoretically? in best case scenario? only 4.5mil, about 10% also went to see Harry Potter, and I'm assuming that more that 10% of the people who go one of WDW parks on vacation go some where "besides" WDW anyway.

People keep wanting to believe that because Harry Potter is very popular among "some" people that it is some how popular to "all" people. Star Wars is very popular among "some" people, but not "all" people want to pay the extra price to go to a Star Wars Weekend. There is a limit to how popular a movie or IP is, and how many people are interested in paying to experience it in a theme park

Umm I don't think thats how it works. Those people who park hop multiple times to MK during a week count each time as one visitor. So one person can be counted as many times as the walk through MK turnstiles on separate days (If they went to MK twice in one day only counts as one visit but if they came on Monday then again on Tuesday thats two visits). Its not unique visitors, its the number of times someone stepped into that park. Secondly, more locals have Universal APs than Disney so they also would be walking and adding lots of visits to Universal. So those numbers are very much skewed in my opinion.

 

[twebber55]

If they can't fix the Yeti, how the heck are the new crazy advance Navi AAs going to work.

they can fix the yeti they choose not to

 

[TubaGeek]

If they can't fix the Yeti, how the heck are the new crazy advance Navi AAs going to work.

Oh, I think you know the answer to that

Duct tape and pixie dust?

 

[DinoInstitute]

Duct tape and pixie dust?

and some denial

 

[lazyboy97o]

Since you're all so good at spelling, Here's a little thing called math...

In 2013 the Magic Kingdom's attendance was about 18mil people, Universal's IOA/Harry Potter park was about half that at 9mil, and Universal's original other park was about half of IOA at 4.5mil.

While no one can prove how many people only went to one or all of these places, the numbers seem indicate that half of that 9mil who went to IoA went to both Uni and IoA last year, and the other 4.5mil went some where else or went to IoA twice, or let's say the also went to the Magic Kingdom.

So if 4.5mil people in 2013 "only" went to the 2 Uni parks, and the other 4.5mil both Uni and MK, that means there were about 13.5mil people who "only" went to MK in 2013, and had no interest in Uni or Harry Potter. So are you implying that if Disney had built Harry Potter on their own property it would some how make it more popular than it is at UNI? Because that's seems to be the argument being made by this dumb article...

If roughly 13.5mil of Disney's guests didn't care to go see "Harry Potter-land part 1" last year, why would those same people suddenly want to go and see "HP-land part 2" this year? that doesn't make any sense, because there was about 18mil people who paid to get in MK last year, 11mil paid to get in Epcot, and 10mil at AK, and another 10mil at DHS, for a grand total of about 50 mil, and they also bought food and merch and rented a room and of that 50 mil, theoretically? in best case scenario? only 4.5mil, about 10% also went to see Harry Potter, and I'm assuming that more that 10% of the people who go one of WDW parks on vacation go some where "besides" WDW anyway.

People keep wanting to believe that because Harry Potter is very popular among "some" people that it is some how popular to "all" people. Star Wars is very popular among "some" people, but not "all" people want to pay the extra price to go to a Star Wars Weekend. There is a limit to how popular a movie or IP is, and how many people are interested in paying to experience it in a theme park

Math is easy when you make up numbers.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I get such a detailed visual of you typing comments like this and your other comment (that seems to have been removed? ) All yelling at the screen with a prominent vein in your forehead. (In a good, hilarious way).

That's why I went into the pool.

I mean, I get that some people can only shoot in RAW at f/22 on a tripod. I get that's all they are capable of. I get that all they can do is post-production and have no photography skills to speak of. I get that.

Just don't expect me to like the pedantic detritus they put out.

 

[wdisney9000]

Since you're all so good at spelling, Here's a little thing called math...



People keep wanting to believe that because Harry Potter is very popular among "some" people that it is some how popular to "all" people. Star Wars is very popular among "some" people, but not "all" people want to pay the extra price to go to a Star Wars Weekend. There is a limit to how popular a movie or IP is, and how many people are interested in paying to experience it in a theme park

You don't have to "pay an extra price" to attend Star Wars weekends. If your not making grammatical errors, your making mathematical errors. I deleted the rest of your post because it was useless.

 

[wdisney9000]

That's why I went into the pool.

I mean, I get that some people can only shoot in RAW at f/22 on a tripod. I get that's all they are capable of. I get that all they can do is post-production and have no photography skills to speak of. I get that.

Just don't expect me to like the pedantic detritus they put out.

very shallow and pedantic of them. That word is getting a lot of use lately.

 

[danlb_2000]

Honestly the first pic looks like it will be narrow and very crowded walkway between tall square buildings ...I'm wondering about traffic flow there

Another one of your pics looks like the boardwark area now and I'm not sure if you were expecting Ariel to breath fire or what? lol

While some of the new Uni additions look nice...if we're comparing new dragons...I think the one in the daytime parade at WDW has to win hands down

But the one in the parade doesn't look anything like a "real" flesh and blood dragon.