There was an enhancement to the TDL Mansion back in the early 90's where a new entrance with big griffins was added and a few special effects in the library books scene. Minor stuff. TDL in general has lots of detail and the exterior of that attraction (WDW gothic) is well aged with lots of detail too.
When/why was there a plan to change the ride system at the Tokyo Mansion? I think you mentioned somewhere consideration of putting the GPS ride system in there, and there's a rendering in the most recent D23 magazine of a remodel that would involve 3-D glasses.
I'm sure Eddie can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding from reading various accounts is that the main initial issue with profitability had to do with using the American model (specifically WDW) of multi night stay at a property hotel and purchase of all meals on property. Hotel rooms were vastly overbuilt for demand and that dragged down profits projected based on ticket sales. Park attendance was not an issue.
Then there was the overlooking of cultural issues...with few Europeans and even fewer French admitting that they visited or would consider visiting the parks, mix in a botched Studios project, without "any" attractions, and the negative comments spilled over to include Disneyland.
This is all true, but the saga of DLRP is kind of a rollercoaster that played out over time. The problem is that the early dilemmas were so unexpected and daunting that the name "Euro Disney" became synonymous with business disaster - it doesn't help that this meme was spread by a business and cultural community that had been slavering for Disney to make a misstep. Things did get better, but that initial blindsiding was so intense that it's still remembered today - and WDSP didn't help in 2002.
It wasn't a creative failure, though, and attendance only was an issue in that it didn't meet some inflated expectations. Instead of how many people were coming, the problem is how they were coming and how they were using the park. The ultra-oversimplified story:
First, Disney builds an awesome theme park and five hotels. I'm not sure what the real impetus for this was, as I'd always assumed it was Eisner's desire for an overnight "destination" resort but Eddie's interpretation of the labor agreements makes sense too. The people showed up - it was Europe's #1 tourist attraction immediately and had a greater first 6 months of attendance than any Disney park ever - but was not making a profit for several reasons:
- Far lower per-guest spending on merch than other Disney parks
- Guests not spending enough on food in the parks
- A European recession combined with unfavorable exchange rates for Britons and others
- Differing European vacation patterns which led to more day-trips and less week-long resort stays
- Parisian winters are just as cold as Tokyo winters, but much wetter - and the French were thus less likely to come out on winter days
These were all things the business side should have seen coming, as no doubt these patterns were all in their decade of site research. But I guess since every recent park had blown away expectations, I can see how optimism would come easily.
So, the resort was operating at a deficit, and Disney was paying high operating costs for hotels that weren't full. But after closing a few down for those first early winters, the resort was actually doing ok. The problem then was that any potential profits were going to servicing a crushing debt load. Those early deficits had burned through a lot of cash, and the resort was paying so much in interest it burned through all the money that was intended to go for the second gate (which was to open in 1994, then 1995). Ironically, the second gate was what a lot of people thought was necessary to pack the hotels and run up profit margins. Looking back at the press at the time, a lot of people were breathless that the park would close (and even Eisner said that Disney wouldn't loan the resort more money).
Long story short (too late), the resort refinanced, got a cash infusion, added Space Mountain in 1995 and was doing great. Sure, it came at the cost of a 2nd gate in 1995 and a 3rd gate in 1999, a water park, and several unbuilt attractions, but the resort was healthy and profitable.
Then, just as things were great, contractual obligations (and a desire for expansion) led to the Studios park in 2002. We know how well that went, and now the resort was paying to operate two parks, although only one had any people in it.
Once again, the resort was in the red.
Anyway, now things are good again and hopefully will stay that way. The resort deserves it, and both parks need a bit of renewal. And that third gate underway by 2017!
The only confusing thing to me is, with all the information out there about the broken business plan, making the wrong deals, building 5 hotels, or underestimating the labor costs, etc. what I still hear as the short sole reason was that "the designers spent too much money on the park".
Well, I think this is the result of a coordinated effort over the years by certain people that falls under the category of CYA. Better to blame those darn creatives for their lavish frivolity than take the heat for ignoring research data or popping a park near Paris because the CEO liked going there as a kid. DLRP was used as a "cautionary tale" to excuse the abandonment of projects like Port Disney, Westcot and Disney's America in favor of stuff like DCA.
Don't worry about it, though - the fans know better and know that the Kingdom there is the most beautiful of all!
Any idea who is going to be heading up the Shanghai project? Because of the scope of the park in China I would imagine a fair amount of the Imagineering will have to be outsourced. Wouldn't it be prudent of TWDC to use people familar with the interworkings of Disney.
Bob Weis, so they say...
