Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks (Part II)

[Cosmic Commando]

Of course. But besides the cost of demolishing rides, eateries, and buildings in DHS, this would also reduce the capacity of DHS for maybe 3 years. DCA's suffered no such reduction in capacity because Carsland was built on a parking lot. So, $50 to $100 million for the difficulty of building Carsland in DHS, plus the loss of maybe 1.5 million guests each year to DHS for three years, that would be a total of maybe 4.5 million guests lost over three years, and if they disney makes 100 bucks off of each guests . . . you're talking about a lot of money.

Frankly, I can see why it would be cheaper, and a better long term option. to build on DHS's designated expansion lot west of World Drive. They could do it without ripping out part of a park that is making money, and when this expansion is finished, they'd have more rides. Even if it costs 100's of millions moving World Drive, might be about the same or cheaper when you talk about shutting down 1/4 of DHS for three years.

How much does it cost to move a freeway? I'm thinking hundreds of millions, but you can see why this is the preset expansion plan. Folks who know more about the issue at the company already thought this out.

That being said, Carsland would probably be $800 million at DHS, at least, if they do either option, probably less with expanding west of World Drive. You can why the report hints at expanding AK with tons of land inside the park ready to go.

It would actually be cheaper to build Carsland east of the Magic Kingdom parking lot in the massive expansion pad, of course they'd have to build more for a half-day park, but at least they save hundreds of millions in costs when it comes to moving a major roadway, plus there is room for parking lot expansion there.

I think you're going a little wild with the cost and crowd estimates there. Demo is not crazy expensive and you're not losing much capacity if you knock down things that people don't go to. You'd also be saving money because you wouldn't be building all of that rockwork up to CA earthquake building code standards. Without Luigi's (which I think they could axe without any replacement without many complaints) and without the development costs (Al Lutz reported that Mater's budget had swelled to $100M... how?!??!), I think you could build a DHS Carsland for roughly the same amount of money or less than the DCA version.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I think you're going a little wild with the cost and crowd estimates there. Demo is not crazy expensive and you're not losing much capacity if you knock down things that people don't go to. You'd also be saving money because you wouldn't be building all of that rockwork up to CA earthquake building code standards. Without Luigi's (which I think they could axe without any replacement without many complaints) and without the development costs (Al Lutz reported that Mater's budget had swelled to $100M... how?!??!), I think you could build a DHS Carsland for roughly the same amount of money or less than the DCA version.

You've got a point about development costs, but given the choice of a more expensive Carsland in DHS, versus waiting and putting Carsland in a fifth gate, I can see Burbank wanting to save money. Plus, tearing down backstage buildings and currently standing buildings costs $$, and would probably take at least six months and cost tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

Some guests ride the Studio Backlot Tour and go to LMA, so, yes, if you shut these attractions down you'd lose capacity. DHS gets about 9.6 million a year, if they shutdown these two attractions, you'd lose some guests. Let's say its just 500,000, and if these guests net Disney 100 bucks during their stay, then you lose 50 million a year over 3 years. Remember, they're afraid of shutting down EE to fix stuff due to a fear of losing a million or more guests a year.

The most radical thing Disney did was tear down Sunshine Plaza in DCA. But, it was just a cheap strip mall type place to begin with. Usually, with few exceptions, attractions that are no longer popular get plussed in some way, instead of tearing the attraction down. A lot more $$ went into building LMA and Backlot Tour than Sunshine Plaza. Can't see Disney basically destroying part of DHS, especially when DHS pulls in as many guests as AK, and given that AK is ripe for expansion.

You've read the official Reedy Creek paperwork, they don't plan on expanding inside of DHS, they are looking at expanding DHS west of World Drive, BUT this would be very expensive. Hence Avatarland at AK. Epcot and AK expansions, and fifth park expansion pads are more feasible, and they don't need to destroy 1/4 of a theme park that is getting close to 10 million visitors a year.

 

[flynnibus]

Plus, tearing down backstage buildings and currently standing buildings costs $$, and would probably take at least six months and cost tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

Hundreds of millions to demo office buildings and metal buildings? You've gone off the deep end of the deep end.

Some guests ride the Studio Backlot Tour and go to LMA, so, yes, if you shut these attractions down you'd lose capacity. DHS gets about 9.6 million a year, if they shutdown these two attractions, you'd lose some guests. Let's say its just 500,000, and if these guests net Disney 100 bucks during their stay, then you lose 50 million a year over 3 years

Capacity != attendance... let alone Disney's pricing model.. making such 'analysis' like this completely bonkers. Please just stop. And please stop in this thread especially.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

One thing to consider. When you eliminate an attraction or food facility, you do not add operating costs overall to the park, as those costs of operation are credited to the new attraction or facility. In the case of Carsland the cost of operation may even go down versus trams, and the capacity would be more valuable as it is incremental or preferred, meaning it has more demand. Closing attractions saves operating cost although it reduces capacity. DL used to secretly extend rehabs to save on operating cost. There is a breaking point, but if the capacity you lose was not that utilized, then what you are doing is a winner long term.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Interesting points, however:

The Studio Backlot Tour isn’t what it was in the 1990’s, but a large number of guests ride the Backlot trams and experience LMA each day at DHS. Combined, what is the ride capacity of these two attractions?

Each tram can carry about 200 guests, and they used to make a big deal about how quickly Catastrophe Canyon can reset in minutes. So with both attractions, maybe 3,000 guests an hour can experience them, (maybe more) working out to about 30,000 guests a day ride either attraction? Years ago, the Backlot Tour used to be one of the “everybody sees” attractions, and with the Great Movie, makes the park Disney Hollywood Studios, vs. DCA East.

I think in terms of fiscal responsibility, it makes more sense to re-work the Backlot Tour, and add Carsland if desired to DHS by expanding across World Drive (or to a fifth gate). A lavish $1-200 million re-imagineering of the Backlot Tour could do wonders, and would be much less than Carsland, and wouldn’t take as long to construct.

The Backlot Tram could glide through recreations of 1930’s movie studios or something equally interesting, it is a long ride with a lot of room for improvements. They could build showbuildings (or use existing show buildings) and have the tram visit a movie set where some famous film is being shot in the 1930s, or some other golden period of Hollywood.

So, the company could either re-imagine a work horse attraction, the Backlot Tours, or completely trash two attractions that still entertain thousands of guests each day. Besides, LMA and the Backlot both hold a lot of guests due to the long queue and preshow in one, and the other being a show, this takes thousands of guests off the walkways, as opposed to an omnimover ride which has 20 people waiting in line, and maybe a 100 people inside the ride.

Carsland would be a bit hit at WDW, but the company doesn’t need to shoot itself in the foot by removing two big attractions at DHS. Backlot and LMA burn up a couple hours for most guests, without these attractions, you’d have much longer lines in the rest of the park, and guests would be leaving early after having seen everything.

Sunshine Plaza was “ripped-out”, but they rebuilt a lot . . . completely removing Backlot and LMA would set a precedence in terms of $$$ value of attractions demolished.

Longterm the biggest winner is to re-imagine Backlot/LMA and build Carsland. Double the capacity, double the attractions.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

In my past experience, the tour was utilized primarily by first timers and did not have a very high repeat visitation. Especially in the evening. If it still packs them in, then maybe you think twice before ripping it out.
Incremental attendance is huge to a park and it extends guests stay on the property, so there is lots of value to a strong reason to visit.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

In my past experience, the tour was utilized primarily by first timers and did not have a very high repeat visitation. Especially in the evening. If it still packs them in, then maybe you think twice before ripping it out.
Incremental attendance is huge to a park and it extends guests stay on the property, so there is lots of value to a strong reason to visit.

Good points. Backlot may well not be pulling in enough guests to justify upkeep. However, from a re-imagineering view point, it seems like there are a lot of creative ways changes could be made.

For example, they could use Catastrophe Canyon, and its gallons of water and pyrotechnics, for perhaps a new scene. You could have an animatronic Iron Man fighting a Hulk, things explode and a water hydrant explodes.

And instead of touring the inside of a machine shop and wardrobe factory, the tram could enter a gigantic reproduction of a set from the new Oz film, or even a reproduction of the Lone Ranger set.

Or tear out all of this stuff and have LPS cars go through the early days of Hollywood with scenes from great classics, like Charlie Chaplin, and others.

Carsland is fantastic, but DCA is more about outdoor-type adventures, where DHS has, for better or worse, the “Hollywood” theme running through it.

Plus, not sure how well DHS is positioned for a large influx of guests given its limited size. I think that is why they are pushing ahead with Avatarland as AK has open space for construction. Not sure if I'd want to see them try to squeeze Carsland into DHS as a lot of compromises might be made design wise.

 

[menamechris]

Good points. Backlot may well not be pulling in enough guests to justify upkeep. However, from a re-imagineering view point, it seems like there are a lot of creative ways changes could be made.

For example, they could use Catastrophe Canyon, and its gallons of water and pyrotechnics, for perhaps a new scene. You could have an animatronic Iron Man fighting a Hulk, things explode and a water hydrant explodes.

And instead of touring the inside of a machine shop and wardrobe factory, the tram could enter a gigantic reproduction of a set from the new Oz film, or even a reproduction of the Lone Ranger set.

Or tear out all of this stuff and have LPS cars go through the early days of Hollywood with scenes from great classics, like Charlie Chaplin, and others.

Carsland is fantastic, but DCA is more about outdoor-type adventures, where DHS has, for better or worse, the “Hollywood” theme running through it.

Plus, not sure how well DHS is positioned for a large influx of guests given its limited size. I think that is why they are pushing ahead with Avatarland as AK has open space for construction. Not sure if I'd want to see them try to squeeze Carsland into DHS as a lot of compromises might be made design wise.

While your thoughts are very thought out - and clearly you are very passionate about it - it gets a great big "oh well". You have great, creative ideas for parts of the Backlot, but the bottom line is that it has NEVER made Disney money. Carsland (if and when opened in DHS) will become one of the highest profit merchandise locations on property. It will make DHS a 'can not miss' park for families (which it most certainly is not now) and would seem to hit all of the value checklist points for TDO. It's all about attendance, capacity, AND making money...

 

[ChrisFL]

For example, they could use Catastrophe Canyon, and its gallons of water and pyrotechnics, for perhaps a new scene. You could have an animatronic Iron Man fighting a Hulk, things explode and a water hydrant explodes.

Except that can't happen in Florida

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Interesting points, however:

The Studio Backlot Tour isn’t what it was in the 1990’s, but a large number of guests ride the Backlot trams and experience LMA each day at DHS. Combined, what is the ride capacity of these two attractions?

Each tram can carry about 200 guests, and they used to make a big deal about how quickly Catastrophe Canyon can reset in minutes. So with both attractions, maybe 3,000 guests an hour can experience them, (maybe more) working out to about 30,000 guests a day ride either attraction? Years ago, the Backlot Tour used to be one of the “everybody sees” attractions, and with the Great Movie, makes the park Disney Hollywood Studios, vs. DCA East.

But don't forget: the backlot tour literally was the entire back half of the park. Streets of America, the TSMM building, the LMA stadium area, etc. AND the difference now is that there was actual production as a draw back then. LMA has a 5,000 seat stadium and often runs two shows a day now; Radiator Springs Racers takes 1750 people per hour... in a 12 hour day, that's 21,000. Add in maybe 10,000 from Mater's (~800 hourly) and you're at roughly the same number of guests as Backlot and LMA, but with higher merchandise sales in the same area and "destination" restaurants in Flo's and the Cozy Cone.

One thing to consider. When you eliminate an attraction or food facility, you do not add operating costs overall to the park, as those costs of operation are credited to the new attraction or facility. In the case of Carsland the cost of operation may even go down versus trams, and the capacity would be more valuable as it is incremental or preferred, meaning it has more demand. Closing attractions saves operating cost although it reduces capacity. DL used to secretly extend rehabs to save on operating cost. There is a breaking point, but if the capacity you lose was not that utilized, then what you are doing is a winner long term.

I've had the idea that Disney tends to schedule refurbs based on the "importance" of the work being done, and not necessarily the man hours that it will take... do you think there's any truth to that? That Disney would use the length of a rehab to communicate to guests that the changes coming were a big deal? Take Test Track, for example: if they were able to change that over into Test Track 2.0 in six weeks instead of six months, I think it would feel like less of a major change to the fan community. Having it down gets people talking about the attraction again. So I theorize that Disney sort of picks how long it wants the refurb to be and then schedules the work accordingly to make it take that long. Am I crazy?

 

[stevehousse]

I have hears numerous posts on the boards about how DHS can be extended into the parking lot behind Indy. And then making the other parking lot into a multi level parking structure.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

But don't forget: the backlot tour literally was the entire back half of the park. Streets of America, the TSMM building, the LMA stadium area, etc. AND the difference now is that there was actual production as a draw back then. LMA has a 5,000 seat stadium and often runs two shows a day now; Radiator Springs Racers takes 1750 people per hour... in a 12 hour day, that's 21,000. Add in maybe 10,000 from Mater's (~800 hourly) and you're at roughly the same number of guests as Backlot and LMA, but with higher merchandise sales in the same area and "destination" restaurants in Flo's and the Cozy Cone.


I've had the idea that Disney tends to schedule refurbs based on the "importance" of the work being done, and not necessarily the man hours that it will take... do you think there's any truth to that? That Disney would use the length of a rehab to communicate to guests that the changes coming were a big deal? Take Test Track, for example: if they were able to change that over into Test Track 2.0 in six weeks instead of six months, I think it would feel like less of a major change to the fan community. Having it down gets people talking about the attraction again. So I theorize that Disney sort of picks how long it wants the refurb to be and then schedules the work accordingly to make it take that long. Am I crazy?

You are not crazy, but I had no experience with using downtime as a marketing tool. My experience years ago when attendance was down was that if you extend the JC "rehab" a few more weeks and take your time, you could save lots of money in operating costs while charging full price for admission. Today the CA parks are more heavily used and business is good, so DL needs to rehab the shows often and get them back up.

The issue with Carsland is capacity. The Luigi ride is weak and Mater is just ok. They both have low capacity. They are filler in my opinion. RSR is not great but passible in that area. So if you look at the exchange in capacity, that to me is a big deal. I'd like to see them rejigger the land a bit and add one more new ride in exchange for Luigi and see what comes out of that. Could Carsland be the anchor of a Pixar Studios area with TS Midway Mania?

 

[lazyboy97o]

My biggest problem with Cars Land is the same problem I have with how much of Walt Disney World is developed. There are a few things, that may be physically of size, that are spread out. Compared to Disneyland which is far more dense and layered. Yes, this is true to how Radiator Springs, as a town built for cars, is laid out, but I still question if it is the best choice for a theme park environment. Carland could have been changed and built out, layered and more dense. But Radiator Springs has a set form. This is the problem with these very focused intellectual property-based lands and parks. Once you exploit the know property, what happens next? This is probably why so many of the proposed single-property parks fail to go anywhere, they have little else to grow with. So what happens when a wide open land is built out to the limits of the established world?

 

[HMF]

Eddie's Jungle Cruise boathouse made an appearence on South Park.

 

[stevehousse]

There is already a thread about this episode on the boards but I thought it was absolutely hysterical!!!

 

[HMF]

There is already a thread about this episode on the boards but I thought it was absolutely hysterical!!!

I could have done without the attacks on Randy Newman but a pretty good episode nonetheless.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie's Jungle Cruise boathouse made an appearence on South Park.

Who would have thunk it?

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

My biggest problem with Cars Land is the same problem I have with how much of Walt Disney World is developed. There are a few things, that may be physically of size, that are spread out. Compared to Disneyland which is far more dense and layered. Yes, this is true to how Radiator Springs, as a town built for cars, is laid out, but I still question if it is the best choice for a theme park environment.

I think the feel of wide open spaces are critical for Radiator Spring's layout and feel. For this reason, they couldn't add a People Mover going down the middle of the street. And while it looks like a small little town with not much there, the Cadillac Mountain range houses a massive ride complex.

Radiator Springs looks less dense than Main Street, but has two rides, though Main Street does have the train station. A way to add layering to Radiator Springs might have been to add an Autopia style ride for kids, and have the cars go over an "overpass" in front of Radiator Springs that guests walk under. This would add some kinetic feel to the entrance, and ties in to the story of Radiator Springs.

If they do use Carsland in another park, I think they could make Radiator Springs the main street, have the Cadillac Mountain range as the castle, and have the "back-side" of the Cadillac Mountains fleshed out with rock-work (maybe unrelated to Carsland), so that you have two-rides in one mountain.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

The Luigi ride is weak and Mater is just ok.

I personally love Mater, and Luigi's, but I can see that Luigi's could be plussed. Here is how I would do it:

Expand Luigi's east by building a circuitous track through a themed area. Build the track so that it has a slight incline, and add wheels on the bottom of the tires and use the air pressure similar to the water jets on small world to "push" the tires around the track. You wouldn't need enough air pressure to levitate the tires, just to provide a little forward motion.

Tires could easily "bump" each other, if guests are able to catch up to the tire in front of them, and you could have a decision point where you choose two paths through two different scenes:

1. Scary - Haunted abandoned cars junkyard.
2. Silly - Cars playground.

Or maybe a new scene based on Cars 3.

Guests would spin around as they sailed through the scenery, and at the end of the ride would be a small "lift hill" which would return guests to the loading station. This idea would allow WDI to recycle the air pressure system, and allow guests to "tilt" and maneuver their tires a small amount, (depending on how wide the "road" is). The loading system could be a long line of the tires and a "gate" holding them back from gliding down the path.

Basically, you have the fun of maneuvering the tire, but the forward velocity would be provided by the ride. You could even use air nozzle pointing in the reverse direction to slow the tire down and provide virtual "bumps" in the road.

Of course, you have to have the tire part of the vehicle with some suspension above the wheels so that you can tilt the tire independent of what the wheels are doing, and hence can maneuver the tire somewhat.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think the feel of wide open spaces are critical for Radiator Spring's layout and feel. For this reason, they couldn't add a People Mover going down the middle of the street. And while it looks like a small little town with not much there, the Cadillac Mountain range houses a massive ride complex.

I agree that the spacing was critical to replicating Radiator Springs. What I question is the choice to replicate Radiator Springs instead of a more generic town. Radiator Springs has its set design. It'll be hard to add new buildings that hold new shops, eateries, experiences and attractions because they are not part of Radiator Springs. You can't change Luigi's to be something better that fits with some new great attraction idea, because it is Luigi's. You're forced to work with the paradigm of the Cars universe.

Radiator Springs looks less dense than Main Street, but has two rides, though Main Street does have the train station. A way to add layering to Radiator Springs might have been to add an Autopia style ride for kids, and have the cars go over an "overpass" in front of Radiator Springs that guests walk under. This would add some kinetic feel to the entrance, and ties in to the story of Radiator Springs.

But why would there be an overpass on Route 66? The US highways were mostly surface streets, with the overpass a feature of limited access highways like the interstate that we known has bypassed Radiator Springs. You're introducing something very new Radiator Springs. In Carland you could have done this, because it is not a set form.

If they do use Carsland in another park, I think they could make Radiator Springs the main street, have the Cadillac Mountain range as the castle, and have the "back-side" of the Cadillac Mountains fleshed out with rock-work (maybe unrelated to Carsland), so that you have two-rides in one mountain.

Now that would be interesting.