Fantasyland rehab/updated approved!

[RSoxNo1]

I will maintain that the theme of the attraction is irrelevant it's how richly themed the attraction is that makes it. Sure, initially there will be people that visit Harry Potter because it's Harry Potter themed, but ultimately, the quality of the product wins out. If they just rethemed the Dueling Dragons Queue to be Harry Potter themed, and that was it, ultimately people would recognize that the coaster itself isn't particularly well themed.

What Disney is facing with Harry Potter land is the immersion that will come from the environments and the Kuka/Roba Coaster attraction. The immersion can be matched/one upped with a Fantasyland overhaul that brings a similar level of immersion. I had heard speculation that guests or street performers would be able to interact with the buildings through magic wands or other things. Disney combating this with the RFID technology can be just as impressive.

The risk is that the Kuka/Roba Coaster attraction blows away any Disney offering, but that didn't happen with Spider Man. I think the defense there was that the quantity of quality attractions that Disney offered superseded the fact that Islands of Adventure housed the best attraction in Orlando.

The Kuka/Roba Coaster attraction can be themed to anything, Disney was going to make it an Incredibles attraction, Universal is using it for Harry Potter, and I'm sure there's dozens of other ideas we haven't heard of.

I hope the theming of Harry Potter is top notch. I hope it takes away from Disney's gate. And I hope that afterwards Universal doesn't rest on their laurels. Whether that means bringing The Transformers attraction to Florida, or something else, it doesn't matter. Nothing would be better than seeing Disney and Universal going back and forth trying to one up each other. If Harry Potter makes a dent in Disney's attendance then not only will you have the guys above TDO pushing for more attractions, but TDO will be forced to come on board with the additions as well.

I want to see Theme Park wars because the biggest winner is us, the consumer.

 

[DisneyDellsDude]

I agree, each park should be relatively equal. That's why DHS and DAK both need major expansions.

There is so much to be done in the existing parks.

Probably the only thing to be accounted for is that Disneyland is 50+ years old, and Animal Kingdom is only a bit over 10. That's a key part I forgot to figure until now.
Plus the quality of the additions.

 

[janoimagine]

I want to see Theme Park wars because the biggest winner is us, the consumer.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Studios Fan]

There is so much to be done in the existing parks.

Probably the only thing to be accounted for is that Disneyland is 50+ years old, and Animal Kingdom is only a bit over 10. That's a key part I forgot to figure until now.
Plus the quality of the additions.

True, plus one of the main problems with DHS and DAK is they did not have the number of attractions they needed to start with unlike say Epcot which started with more.

 

[Studios Fan]

I couldn't agree more.

Nor could I.

 

[IlikeDW]

I meant park for park, not resort for resort.
For Walt Disney World having twice as many parks as Disneyland Resort, wouldn't you expect more attractions to be housed in Walt Disney World?:shrug:

I guess it depends if you want to view each park or each resort as a destination. I visit WDW once every 18-24 months and stay 7-9 days so I think of it as one destination, the parks we choose to visit more each trip has changed each time we go. I have not been to DL, until some of the posts in this thread I have perceived DL as too small to be worth a trip just to see DL. Now I am not so sure.
I do see your point in that people close enough for a day trip, or who stay for shorter periods might be disappointed with a smaller park vs larger.

 

[Studios Fan]

I guess it depends if you want to view each park or each resort as a destination. I visit WDW once every 18-24 months and stay 7-9 days so I think of it as one destination, the parks we choose to visit more each trip has changed each time we go. I have not been to DL, until some of the posts in this thread I have perceived DL as too small to be worth a trip just to see DL. Now I am not so sure.
I do see your point in that people close enough for a day trip, or who stay for shorter periods might be disappointed with a smaller park vs larger.

I've wondered what percentage of people who are just day-tripping go to the other parks other than MK.

 

[Captain Chaos]

OK, I have a question. As Lee says, Wall Street wants Disney to invest in the parks now because they want them to be able to take advantage of an economy that should eventually rebound. Does TDO not recognize that to make money they have to invest in the parks. I mean it just doesn't make since they wouldn't want new attractions and that they actually want to keep investments away as you suggest. Can you explain why they would be so motivated? And please keep your personal animosity towards TDO out of your response.....if possible.

You can answer all this... No need for me to.. Plus, Tirian already answered it perfectly...

 

[Captain Chaos]

I want to see Theme Park wars because the biggest winner is us, the consumer.

I would love a theme park war too.. It is great for the consumers... Problem is, IOA did nothing to Disney's attendance, while Universal struggles to bring in 6 million a year... And with a recession economy, Disney's gates aren't hurting too too much while Universal is hurting a lot... If a recession economy is not keeping people out of Disney World, Harry Potter sure won't... My fear is, Disney goes through this refurb, Harry Potter doesn't take anything away from Disney thus nullifying it as a major threat, and Disney just goes back to resting on its laurels, cuts some of the Fantasyland refurb, and goes back into a period of adding nothing major...

 

[Admiral01]

I've wondered what percentage of people who are just day-tripping go to the other parks other than MK.

EPCOT is the only park I have ever spent a single day on. I don't go to MK, DHS, or DAK unless I have more than one day.

 

[DisneyDellsDude]

I guess it depends if you want to view each park or each resort as a destination. I visit WDW once every 18-24 months and stay 7-9 days so I think of it as one destination, the parks we choose to visit more each trip has changed each time we go. I have not been to DL, until some of the posts in this thread I have perceived DL as too small to be worth a trip just to see DL. Now I am not so sure.
I do see your point in that people close enough for a day trip, or who stay for shorter periods might be disappointed with a smaller park vs larger.

Go to Disneyland and that area of SoCal if you get a chance. It's great - definitely worth the trip if you're a huge Disney fan; and you'll see how great a Magic Kingdom type park can be, and that WDW's Magic Kingdom could use some work!

 

[SirGoofy]

Well, well. I drive down to Orlando today, and everything goes haywire! One of my buddies told me he had big news when I got down...could be more conformation.

BTW:Terrific avatar, jt. :lol:

 

[tinkerblonde11]

This is just a shot in the dark but I was wondering if the Magic Kingdom has taken the Villain themed land under consideration. I've heard about it and was wondering if it was still a concept.

 

[tirian]

The only problem with tirian's idea with the dragon AA is that it's the wrong story/castle. But I assume he meant it for illustrative purposes...

If Snow White can have a ride behind Cinderella's castle (not the icon, the house), and multiple Dumbos can fly in Cindy's back yard, Maleficent can reside nearby.

Walt put a giant Christmas star on top the Matterhorn.

 

[lazyboy97o]

OK, I have a question. As Lee says, Wall Street wants Disney to invest in the parks now because they want them to be able to take advantage of an economy that should eventually rebound. Does TDO not recognize that to make money they have to invest in the parks. I mean it just doesn't make since they wouldn't want new attractions and that they actually want to keep investments away as you suggest. Can you explain why they would be so motivated? And please keep your personal animosity towards TDO out of your response.....if possible.

I have another aspect to add to tirian's answer. Look at Disney's marketing of and additions to the parks and resorts. I get the impression that these people admitantly believe that rich, detailed, immersive environments are not reasons why people visit Walt Disney World.

Attractions do not bring in direct revenue anymore. Switching a restaurant to character dining has solid numbers that can be compared.

Attendance had been rising for the past several years. Why spend all that money if, not only are people still coming, but more people are still coming?

Virtually nothing TDO can do to combat HP to IoA? Thats the funniest thing I have heard in a while ... HP has no shot at even making a small impact on WDW, even if it is amazing ... WDW is a different level.

It is this sort of thinking that leads to neglect and stagnation.

Probably the only thing to be accounted for is that Disneyland is 50+ years old, and Animal Kingdom is only a bit over 10. That's a key part I forgot to figure until now.
Plus the quality of the additions.

That Disneyland is so old is exactly why the more recent parks should have more attractions. Attractions are now what the Disney parks are about and Disney should know that after so many years.

 

[AndrewRnR]

I Disney's gates aren't hurting too too much while Universal is hurting a lot...

Bingo. And that is why the suits here in Orlando arn't in a hurry to add anything. Now as a disclaimer I want new attractions and such just as much as anyone else but I'm just playing devil's advocate here...

Disney is a business. A publicly traded one. What motivates you to add to say the Magic Kingdom when it year after year is the most popular park in the country and one of the most in the world. The park is a great success, guests are happy why change the formula? They have a great foundation with the park and its major e-tickets so thats why I believe we see mainly small c-ticket attractions getting added or changed like Monster Inc. Why sink 100s of millions of dollars into a new huge mountain attraction when the park is already the best in terms of money and attendance in the theme park world.

I think its crazy to compare Magic Kingdom to Disneyland. Similar parks? Yes. Owned by the same company? Yup. But they operate and have two completely different business models. DL is marketed and visited mainly by locals so naturally things need to be added or changed frequently - to keep the attention of the locals and to get them to come back. Magic Kingdom still draws so many first time/once in a lifetime guests they don't need to constantly add new things to get the guests to come back.

And if you look at the bigger picture sure Universal is adding Harry Potter and Sea World got Manta but it is not like they add stuff yearly. IoA went practically and pretty much unchanged since opening 10 YEARS AGO.

The Orlando visitor is unique. So many are once/twice in a lifetime guests and/or first visit guests that they don't need to add something new yearly or heck even every few years. They market on the experience.

People go to Disney World to see Mickey, to get wet on Splash Mtn, to see lions, tigers and a lovable bear and his honey pots, to check in to the Hollywood Tower Hotel, and to get a chance to go backstage with Aerosmith. People don't go for the newest or latest thing. When planning their vacation most average guests don't think about "well they haven't added anything new..." all they think is "I can't wait to see Mickey!" Sure Everest helped DAK a huge amount but I really wonder if a huge new e-ticket at MK would really effect attendance since everyone already plans on going to MK anyways.

 

[TP2000]

Why on Earth would you do that?:ROFLOL:

I included Gran Fiesta Tour in the E Ticket tally because I was trying to be nice. :lol:

If Small World is a 10 minute musical boat ride that's considered an E Ticket, I figured I better include Gran Fiesta Tour too. It also heads off any accusation that I wasn't being fair to the WDW parks in the attraction tally. I gave The Seas an E Ticket rating too, just because the 4 minute Omnimover D Ticket leads to some cool exhibits and a big aquarium.

All of the Future World pavilions were counted as E Tickets in the tally, with The Land getting counted as two separate E Tickets for Soarin' and also Listen To The Land and pavilion as a whole.

 

[The Conundrum]

You know it's weird, but I've been spending the last hour or so wondering where the resident cynics are today. They had all seemed to completely disappear. I've never seen that happen before. Then this news breaks. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Hi Enigma :wave:

Maybe because we don't comment on rumors and speculation? Plus most of us actually have something called lives

 

[tirian]

Bingo. And that is why the suits here in Orlando arn't in a hurry to add anything. Now as a disclaimer I want new attractions and such just as much as anyone else but I'm just playing devil's advocate here...

Disney is a business. A publicly traded one. What motivates you to add to say the Magic Kingdom when it year after year is the most popular park in the country and one of the most in the world. The park is a great success, guests are happy why change the formula? They have a great foundation with the park and its major e-tickets so thats why I believe we see mainly small c-ticket attractions getting added or changed like Monster Inc. Why sink 100s of millions of dollars into a new huge mountain attraction when the park is already the best in terms of money and attendance in the theme park world.

I think its crazy to compare Magic Kingdom to Disneyland. Similar parks? Yes. Owned by the same company? Yup. But they operate and have two completely different business models. DL is marketed and visited mainly by locals so naturally things need to be added or changed frequently - to keep the attention of the locals and to get them to come back. Magic Kingdom still draws so many first time/once in a lifetime guests they don't need to constantly add new things to get the guests to come back.

And if you look at the bigger picture sure Universal is adding Harry Potter and Sea World got Manta but it is not like they add stuff yearly. IoA went practically and pretty much unchanged since opening 10 YEARS AGO.

The Orlando visitor is unique. So many are once/twice in a lifetime guests and/or first visit guests that they don't need to add something new yearly or heck even every few years. They market on the experience.

People go to Disney World to see Mickey, to get wet on Splash Mtn, to see lions, tigers and a lovable bear and his honey pots, to check in to the Hollywood Tower Hotel, and to get a chance to go backstage with Aerosmith. People don't go for the newest or latest thing. When planning their vacation most average guests don't think about "well they haven't added anything new..." all they think is "I can't wait to see Mickey!" Sure Everest helped DAK a huge amount but I really wonder if a huge new e-ticket at MK would really effect attendance since everyone already plans on going to MK anyways.

Low crowd capacity, frustrated Guests, and weak marketing will certainly affect attendance, as well as Guest satisfaction levels. Theme parks are entertainment, and they don't stay on top by stagnating.

 

[tinkerblonde11]

Any feedback with the villains thing? I'd really appreciate it!