• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Disney Theme Park Failures?

celticdog

Well-Known Member
I personally don't see any attractions as a failure. I don't recall any attraction that visitors flat out refused to go on. There have been many that lasted way beyond their lifespan and therefore needed to be replaced. We'd all like to see every attraction remain, but change is constant and very often necessary, otherwise Disney would become stale and dull.

There is one attraction that I know of that was a total failure. It, however was not at Disney. It was at Busch Gardens in Williamburg. The roller coaster Drachen Fire remained open for a few short years. It was so rough and uncomfortable that it only took one ride to realize that you'd never ride it again. Even at peak times, there was never a line. It closed and was put up for sale for around 1.2 million. It was just recently torn down. I don't think it stood for a total of ten years.

All companies have failures, without them how would they measure success?

Remember: Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement.
 
I think Disney puts A LOT of thought into everything they do. Nothing is a true failure. However sometimes they need to realize when a good thing is over (Country Bears Jamboree!) Sorry, I know there are some cbj fans still alive.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
I consider it a failure, because it's been close to bankruptcy twice, including 2005.

Well then I'd say your criteria is very limited. Money isn't everything - poor mangement choices have nothing to do with the quality of the park.

The fact that it is the number one tourist destination in an entire continent sort of backs me up on that. ;)

AEfx
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
M:S is not a failure for Epcot, but a failure for Disney in itself. M:S was set to be Disney's next franchise to spread throughout its resorts (much like how Disney was ready to put a DisneyQuest in almost every state). When the "bad press" caused by the deaths on the ride (not caused by the ride in any way), the franchise idea was killed. M:S will remain as a one of a kind attraction in the Disney resorts.

Although the point is valid, I think the nail was put in that coffin before any of the publicicty regarding the deaths.

M:S simply wasn't terribly successful to begin with. Many people simply did not like the ride, and to be honest I think the Disney response in making the "green" version or whatever they call it was more to increase attendance than undo the bad publicity. As many in-the-know reported at the time, the second bay that they redid for the tamer version was almost never in use anyway.

AEfx
 

isitingood

New Member
High attendance doesn't necessarily mean that the park is fiscally solvent, however. It's plausible to think, especially if you subscribe to the MiceAge point of view, that a great majority of California Adventure's attendance is comprised of annual passholders that spend comparably little in the park and nothing at all to enter it.


No you're wrong I was there last march and DCA was packed and it's not just annual passholders the place gets a lot of teenagers and young adults. And you're counted when you enter the park not just because you're an annual passholder
 

isitingood

New Member
What among Disney Theme parks? :rolleyes:

DCA stuggled for a long long time. It was a bad idea. Attendance is still no where near it's sister park. Even more APs prefer to go to DL.

EDIT: The post above me states that APs do go to DCA. Therefore, I am inccorect in stating that more APs go to DL.


No all theme parks not just disney. How many times do you to DCA because I go every year and last march DCA was packed
 

Madison

New Member
No you're wrong I was there last march and DCA was packed and it's not just annual passholders the place gets a lot of teenagers and young adults. And you're counted when you enter the park not just because you're an annual passholder

If 5 million people enter the park annually and only 1 million paid full admission to get in, the park may be a fiscal failure. I don't know California Adventure's attendance or fiscal performance, nor do I particularly care, but it's pretty easy to see how a park could underperform in with respect to one or the other of those unique indices and be considered a failure because of it. Ultimately, though, attendance is irrelevant. Money talks and if a product isn't making money, except in a few cases where the good will generated can far outweigh any monetary loss, that product is a failure.
 

isitingood

New Member
If 5 million people enter the park annually and only 1 million paid full admission to get in, the park may be a fiscal failure. I don't know California Adventure's attendance or fiscal performance, nor do I particularly care, but it's pretty easy to see how a park could underperform in with respect to one or the other of those unique indices and be considered a failure because of it. Ultimately, though, attendance is irrelevant. Money talks and if a product isn't making money, except in a few cases where the good will generated can far outweigh any monetary loss, that product is a failure.

Like I said I was at DCA last march and it was packed and last time I checked not very many teenagers or young adults can afford to be annual passholders
 

TinkerBelle8878

Well-Known Member
Failures...everyone has their own opinions. One person's failure could be another's favorite.

1. I think a failure was the de-omnimoverization of Future World. World of Motion and Test Track could have coexisted since one deals with history and another deals with the more 'technical' aspect.

Mission Space is in no way any kind of replacement for Horizons. Its not even the same subject matter. I miss seeing the furturistic aspect of Future world that was shown in that ride. Mission Space could've replaced Wonders of Life and they could've rebuilt or done whatever was needed with Horizons to bring it into the future.

2. Making classic rides into movies and then product placing in the attractions themselves.

I enjoyed both PotC movies but putting Johnny Depp in the ride is just odd. I know many people probably disagree with me but the ride was the INSPIRATION not the advertising. If they were to do anything with PotC, I would've said to make it more like Disneyland's. I've been on both and that one is a great deal better.

I shudder to think what Jungle Cruise...the movie will bring.

These figures belong in the Studios in the Great Movie ride.

3. Disney California Adventure...doesn't seem to be a great success as Westcot would've been. But then again if Westcot is like Epcot now..it probably still would fail.

4. The addition of more countries to World Showcase. Greece, Australia, Spain...etc. And the attractions to go with them.

5. A bigger Muppet area in MGM

6. The cancellation of the Beastly Kingdom addition to AK. From what I've read and seen of the concept art this would've been big.

Last but certainly not least-

7. Journey into Your Imagination- Hate it. Really hate it. Used to adore the old version. Throwing random figments into the new one just stinks. I understand that they had to under contract change things, but the imagination is a wide a varied subject. You'd think the Imagineers who get paid to use theirs would've done a better job.

That's just my 2cents.
 

Tim G

Well-Known Member
Even DisneySea is considered a failure, simply because it only brought in about 8 million more guests for the Tokyo Disney Resort.
Disney has had some failed ventures - every company has. They cannot afford to have an entire theme park fail, and right now, Walt Disney Studios next to Disneyland Paris is a complete failure. Last time I checked its not even in the Top 50 for annual attendance for theme parks worldwide.

However, let me point at that right now it is a failure. If they can increase attendance to the 6 million mark ( a 3x increase) than it will be a success.
Excuse me??

Tokyo Disney Resort wasn't a faillure...
 

PlaneJane

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
I wouldn't consider any disney park a failure, because if it is still open you can modify your plans for the park.
 

jedimaster1227

Active Member
1. I think a failure was the de-omnimoverization of Future World. World of Motion and Test Track could have coexisted since one deals with history and another deals with the more 'technical' aspect.

Coexisted in what space? World of Motion basically filled up the pavilion. If you really wanted to stretch the idea of it, they could have removed the GM lounge and the post-show (sorry, but I just forgot what it was called), but that still would not have left enough room for an attraction the size of Test Track and an attraction the size of World of Motion to fit. Though, it would be very cool to see the Test Track cars flying past you when looking from the upward helix from World of Motion! :D

Mission Space is in no way any kind of replacement for Horizons. Its not even the same subject matter. I miss seeing the furturistic aspect of Future world that was shown in that ride. Mission Space could've replaced Wonders of Life and they could've rebuilt or done whatever was needed with Horizons to bring it into the future.

Not exactly. In the idea of your hypothetical on this one, I have to interject. Mission Space was in no way meant to replace Horizons. It was made to replace the Space Pavilion set to replace Horizons. Many factors led up to the final Space Pavilion product that became Mission:Space, but the biggest of all was the budget and HP's recent merger with another company, causing the sponsorship deals to change. (This was explained to me yesterday by an imagineer that I know in full detail-along with more information about his fellow imagineers like Joe Rohde. That was a great conversation! We had a lot of laughs! :lol:)

2. Making classic rides into movies and then product placing in the attractions themselves.

I enjoyed both PotC movies but putting Johnny Depp in the ride is just odd. I know many people probably disagree with me but the ride was the INSPIRATION not the advertising. If they were to do anything with PotC, I would've said to make it more like Disneyland's. I've been on both and that one is a great deal better.

I shudder to think what Jungle Cruise...the movie will bring.

These figures belong in the Studios in the Great Movie ride.

Have you ridden Pirates since its update? I wouldn't really say that "odd" is the word for how much effort was put into that project (and how much effort is visible when looking at that project). It is relatively impossible to make our version of Pirates more like Disneyland's, as Disneyland's is longer in track, in ride time and has more show scenes to work with.

3. Disney California Adventure...doesn't seem to be a great success as Westcot would've been. But then again if Westcot is like Epcot now..it probably still would fail.

Again, how can you judge a project that never went ahead. Epcot hasn't really failed. It has had its low points [for sure], but it has never failed. Westcot would have been a much more advanced version of Epcot, setting it apart from our East Coast park, so once again, the comparisons would be scarce.

4. The addition of more countries to World Showcase. Greece, Australia, Spain...etc. And the attractions to go with them.

These countries don't exist in the World Showcase. :veryconfu

5. A bigger Muppet area in MGM

Doesn't exist either. :veryconfu

6. The cancellation of the Beastly Kingdom addition to AK. From what I've read and seen of the concept art this would've been big.

Actually, it was no bigger than the land now occupied by Everest. My imagineer friend that I spoke to worked on the project from beginning to end, and from his mouth to my ears to my keyboard, I can tell you that it isn't as intricate as everyone dreamed it was. Mainly, it had Dragon Tower, the Maze of the Unicorn and one more minor attraction. And this all was supposed to fit on Everest's parcel of land.

Last but certainly not least-

7. Journey into Your Imagination- Hate it. Really hate it. Used to adore the old version. Throwing random figments into the new one just stinks. I understand that they had to under contract change things, but the imagination is a wide a varied subject. You'd think the Imagineers who get paid to use theirs would've done a better job.

That's just my 2cents.

The generation of Imagineers that built versions two and three are different than the ones that built version one. The level of detail found in EPCOT Center's attractions has been lost on attractions like Mission:Space and Test Track (Not that I don't like either of them, but it will always be the same-in rides like Horizons, you could never be able to see everything in just on ride).
 

TinkerBelle8878

Well-Known Member
Jedimaster, I think you might have misunderstood (or just not understood) some of the stuff I wrote :p Reading it back, I can see why. Sorry about that. So here's the explaination for that list :D

WoM/TT - I meant theoretically IF there was enough space available having both sides of the Transportation covered. I used to love the outside helix when it was WoM at night.

Horizons/MS- Well MS literally replaced Horizons :p- In a perfect world, keeping Horizons and just improving whatever was needed (whether it meant rebuilding completely or whatnot) and then making a seperate Space pavillion, whatever it would have included. Although knowing that MS isn't what was originally supposed to be it is interesting. Is there any info on that anywhere or concept art? I love the 'Disney that never was' stuff.

PotC- No, sigh, I haven't been to the MK in a few years, unfortunately. So I can honestly say that I haven't seen it since the rehab. I may have jumped the gun. Maybe its more the idea that bothers me slightly. When I do get down to WDW and ride it sometime, I'll make a more informed decision.

Also I never was that big a fan of the WDW PotC while I went on DL's once and I really liked it. So I guess anything that improves WDWs version is good.

CA/Westcot- Very good point. But if all they put into Westcot was Test Track and Mission space clones...but its irrelevant. Maybe they should've put the water ride that was originally planned for PotC in WDW there.

WS- Hee hee, I meant that they failed to add more countries. Those were the ones that rumors have been flying about for years.

Muppets- Another failure to do what was origianlly planned for the muppets at MGM.

Beastly Kingdom- I didn't mean big as far as land size. I meant big as in popular..a draw...another fun land to explore there. There wasn't supposed to be a Fantasia ride? I really wanted to see the dancing hippos.

Journey- Exactly. I realize that the original imagineers weren't working on the project for 2 and 3. And I get the budgetary thing. But revamping the upstairs imageworks would've been a great idea since the space is still there and useable. As for the ride itself, I guess I just expected more, you know? I rode both 2 and 3 so this I thankfully can talk about from experience. :lol: When you go into those 3 pavilions, (I can't comment on the Land, when I was in Epcot last, it was RIGHT before the overhaul and Soarin) there's definitely something missing. The level of energy and maybe creativity put into them and the queues.

I hope now everything makes more sense. I really have to stop writing as a stream of conciousness. :p
 

isitingood

New Member
I agree with Corrus
Tokyo Disneyland is not a failure. It ranks third in the world in park attendance with 13 million people while Disney sea ranks 4th with 12 million:wave: I will take a failure like that anyday
 

hokielutz

Well-Known Member
My definition of failure is when you spend a lot of money and/or time on something only to find no one whats anything to do with it.

Let's see.....Hmmmm..how about Disney Intitute?

It failed miserably.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with Walt's visions.
It failed because it was a bad idea.


I agree... Disney institute sounded good at its inception... but very few came to WDW to sit in classes. Maybe only FL residents would go.
Anyways, my comments were not meant to focus on the different attractions or programs that may have been good or not so good... My views are looking at Disney's parks as a whole. Where did they start, how have they progressed, where are they now? Are they getting better, staying the same or recessing? Are they following Walt's vision or taking the carowinds/sixflags/kings dominion/county fair approach?

If they stick to their core values and visions from their inception... keeping families in mind, friendliness, magic moments, using new technology... then they will continue to be successful. Its not all about a few attractions or programs that did not pan out.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom