Expedition Everest is only 13 years old, not 20. Pixar Pier also cost more than $100 million, with @FerretAfros saying it may have even passed $200 million by the very end. The project was far better funded than the results.Not giving them a pass but considering this is a single attraction (Albeit a new build) and built 20 years ago shouldn’t the budget to redress an entire land have been more than 100 million? Especially considering the bloated costs for even the smallest projects?
Expedition Everest is only 13 years old, not 20. Pixar Pier also cost more than $100 million, with @FerretAfros saying it may have even passed $200 million by the very end. The project was far better funded than the results.
Expedition Everest is only 13 years old, not 20. Pixar Pier also cost more than $100 million, with @FerretAfros saying it may have even passed $200 million by the very end. The project was far better funded than the results.
The internal number I was told was around $230M.Expedition Everest is only 13 years old, not 20. Pixar Pier also cost more than $100 million, with @FerretAfros saying it may have even passed $200 million by the very end. The project was far better funded than the results.
This has been an ongoing issue for many years, but the problems have become particularly acute in the last 5-7 years.
WDI’s project costs are even more concerning when you consider that they’re increasingly based on the IP flavor du jour, and will likely need to be overhauled in just a few years.
Tomorrowland 98 was a project where small budgets themselves were cut after being approved. Tony wrongly thought he could somehow pull a miracle and redo Tomorrowland for just about the same amount of money as was just spent on the Indiana Jones Adventure (He also now admits he was wrong and should have fought for more). To say Pressler was given oversight of Walt Disney Imagineering is a bit of a narrow view, yes he became their boss but it was because he was promoted to President of Walt Disney Attractions with Judson Green retaining the Chairmanship until 2000 and the division being reconfigured as Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. Bob Weis already reports to Chapek, and previously to Staggs. The Chairmen of the parks have all been tasked with getting Imagineering's costs down, there has been lots of house cleaning (and even going to far as toying with a near shut down of the division) and they still can't get things under control because they the job is being tasked to someone who is fundamentally clueless about the design and construction process, the attractions industry and what should be a reasonable premium.I don't think its really changed all that much in the last few years, compared to Tomorrowland '98 (21 years ago) when the same exact thing happened. WDI was given a budget and a timeframe and was unable to deliver. That failure led to Pressler taking on oversight of WDI, so there certainly could have been an ulterior motive there. So far there hasn't been any major changes afyer the Pixar Pier experiment, but that cost would certainly be justification to clean house.
I only hope that is hype - if that is even half true it’s the worst investment in Disney history. Just invest that in a new, capacity adding attraction and save on the Jack Jack’s on a Stick and Buzz Lightyear with a churro in his mouth.
View attachment 429770
Tomorrowland 98 was a project where small budgets themselves were cut after being approved.
To say Pressler was given oversight of Walt Disney Imagineering is a bit of a narrow view, yes he became their boss but it was because he was promoted to President of Walt Disney Attractions
I don’t disagree with the results. Others were throwing the 100 million number out there and I was just questioning If that would be enough for modern WDI to do a good job redressing an entire land. Even at 100 million I think they could have done better but if it’s double that then their is just no excuse. With that said, I don’t know what any of this stuff really costs. I can only compare comparable projects.
Yeah, but go through and try to capture what that 'redressing' really delivered. Should they be spending millions for new paint and signs?
Hot take: Expedition Everest is an ugly attraction.
Yep. It should’ve been covered up. Also the rock work just isn’t very impressive. Big Thunder and the Matterhorn look better and they’re far older.The only thing that ever pulls me out of the attraction is how large the ride vehicle looks compared to the rest of the mountain, specifically in the spot it is located in the picture. It really shows how small the mountain actually is, if the ride vehicle wasn't in the picture the sense of scale would be a lot better for me.
Yep. It should’ve been covered up. Also the rock work just isn’t very impressive. Big Thunder and the Matterhorn look better and they’re far older.
Of course not. But then there are things like enclosing the scream tunnels and things of that nature. I have no idea how much that stuff costs. Also, do these estimates include labor?
Hot take: Expedition Everest is an ugly attraction.
Ive never seen it in person but now that you mention it, it does look a little dinky in pictures. Are there better angles?
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.