Frozen ride replacing Maelstrom?

[jt04]

Oh man I wish I could go to that time just to see the original EPCOT Center in all it's glory with my own eyes, I only have foggy memories from the 90's as everything was being torn out. Less thrill rides wouldn't bother me much.

Those are some of the stupidest things I've ever read since joining these boards

Way to contribute! You must be the life of any conversation.

 

[FrankLapidus]

I have spent a lot of time trying to figure it out. OBJ once had an article that said number 2 is corrent. Plenty here claim number 1 is correct but Disney has sunk billions into WDW in just the last few years.

Nobody goes near my third suggestion which makes me think it might be the real story.

I truly have no idea if it is one of these or something I have not thought of. Is Disney playing possum? I guess that is a fourth possibility.

Or you're way off on all three and they've just decided to sink billions into MM+ and let fiscal-minded bean-counters in charge at TDO micromanage and cut costs for too long?

Disney isn't playing possum, they've just been standing still. Anyone who really thinks that the inactivity and slide in standards at WDW in recent years is part of some sort of long-term strategy to eventually shock the world when they do actually decide to address the issues that have been prevalent at the resort is deluding themselves. Epcot, DHS and AK could and should all be a lot better than they are, they're not because Disney has shown no inclination to significantly improve any of them for years, not because Disney decided to be hospitable and let the Florida tourism industry improve by way of the incredible work that has been done, and is still being done, at Universal.

And I say that as someone who has always loved WDW but at some point you have to call a spade a spade and stop trying to come up with excuses to defend them at any and all costs.

 

[Mike S]

Way to contribute! You must be the life of any conversation.

And what have you contributed, exactly? You talk as if you have some kind of inside knowledge that you clearly don't have and from what I gather you haven't even been to the parks.

 

[Gomer]

If it was simply because of greed we would never have gotten Carsland/BVS. Or Disney Springs.

I have three possibilities.

1. Disney was waiting to see what the competition was doing and fan reaction before responding.
2. Disney wants an overall healthy central Florida tourism industry so they are letting Uni catch up.
3. Disney is under political pressure to allow breathing space for other central Florida attractions.*

You and any other of our experts please tell me which it is and justify with facts. I would be grateful.

*see Apple vs Microsoft for how this happens if you doubt me.

I think there’s a more likely scenario #4 here…

#4 Disney is waiting because they can.

I’m not judging whether its the correct strategy either way, but its clear that Disney knows they have wiggle room built into the market. The can let Universal invest significantly, while they work on infrastructure, efficiency, and DVC while still making positive gains each year. It seems Disney is doing the bare minimum investment in attractions as long as they can get away with it and will react more substantially if and only if they see their numbers dwindle.

I don’t like this strategy personally because it means less development for the parks. But you would have to admit, Disney is being proven right to the extent that regardless of spending, the numbers continue to grow. Unfortunately, reactionary spending may be too little too late by the time it starts to affect revenue and attendance figures and it may take them longer than they think to win back that market share if they let if get to that point.

 

[jt04]

Or you're way off on all three and they've just decided to sink billions into MM+ and let fiscal-minded bean-counters in charge at TDO micromanage and cut costs for too long?

Disney isn't playing possum, they've just been standing still. Anyone who really thinks that the inactivity and slide in standards at WDW in recent years is part of some sort of long-term strategy to eventually shock the world when they do actually decide to address the issues that have been prevalent at the resort is deluding themselves. Epcot, DHS and AK could and should all be a lot better than they are, they're not because Disney has shown no inclination in significantly improving any of them for years, not because they decided to be hospitable and let the Florida tourism industry improve by way of the incredible work that has been done, and is still being done, at Universal.

And I say that as someone who has always loved WDW but at some point you have to call a spade a spade and stop trying to come up with excuses to defend them at any and all costs.

So you are of the opinion that TWDC treats WDW as simply a cash cow for other purposes? Hmm, I guess that is another possibility. I will put your theory 5th on the list.

However, they are sinking hundreds and hundreds of millions into Pandora, Disney Springs and many other infrastructure upgrades along with DVC's, new parades, enhanced attractions, park expansions, and refurbs.

So confusing.

 

[jt04]

I think there’s a more likely scenario #4 here…

#4 Disney is waiting because they can.

I’m not judging whether its the correct strategy either way, but its clear that Disney knows they have wiggle room built into the market. The can let Universal invest significantly, while they work on infrastructure, efficiency, and DVC while still making positive gains each year. It seems Disney is doing the bare minimum investment in attractions as long as they can get away with it and will react more substantially if and only if they see their numbers dwindle.

I don’t like this strategy personally because it means less development for the parks. But you would have to admit, Disney is being proven right to the extent that regardless of spending, the numbers continue to grow. Unfortunately, reactionary spending may be too little too late by the time it starts to affect revenue and attendance figures and it may take them longer than they think to win back that market share if they let if get to that point.

Yes, no more reactionary spending would be good. Deliberate, well reasoned adds like Carsland work much better in the long term.

 

[BaconPancakes]

I used to go to WDW with my family every year from 1984 to 1992. The parks are much better now. Imagine going to WDW in the mid-80s when Space Mountain was being refurbished and before Splash Mountain or any other thrill rides were around. I remember a couple of years where the only attraction that went over 5 MPH was Big Thunder Mountain.

Nostalgia is a powerful drug.

Please be kidding. WDW in the 80's/early 90's was fantastic. Just think, in EPCOT we had quality dark rides like Horizons, World of Motion, the Original Figment ride, etc. EPCOT is just sad now.

 

[BaconPancakes]

I just realized that poster thinks anything quality has to be a thrill ride. I prefer elaborate dark rides, but to each their own.

 

[FrankLapidus]

So you are of the opinion that TWDC treats WDW as simply a cash cow for other purposes? Hmm, I guess that is another possibility. I will put your theory 5th on the list.

However, they are sinking hundreds and hundreds of billions into Pandora, Disney Springs and many other infrastructure upgrades along with DVC's, new parades, enhanced attractions, park expansions, and refurbs.

So confusing.

I think they chose to ignore issues at the parks that have been in obvious need of addressing for several years. Its not that WDW is a cash cow but the parks should be their pride and joy and I hold them to a standard that Disney set for me years ago. I don't compare them to Universal, I compare WDW to the WDW I was first introduced to and fell in love with nearly three decades ago.

Without wanting to get at you for not going to the resort, it is very, very difficult to walk through DHS and Epcot and not take notice of that fact that both parks have been allowed to grow stagnant, that neither has really improved in any noticeable way for far too long.

You can make the excuses like they've concentrated on improving infrastructure at the resort but the parks are WDW's bread and butter and more should have been done to improve them. If they can build DVC after DVC then they had the resources to make those improvements in the parks; they chose not to. They have the room and they have the money so why are "temporary" place holders like Chester & Hester still in existence?

That is fundamentally why I'm not in favour of the subject of this thread. Maelstrom can be improved but a Frozen overlay, in my view, is simply a cheap way for TDO to cut corners and merely placate guests and simply meet a very clear demand; Disney and WDW cultured me to expect and demand more than that.

 

[Gomer]

I don't compare them to Universal, I compare WDW to the WDW I was first introduced to and fell in love with nearly three decades ago.

This is something that I think gets overlooked quite a bit. Universals spending may shine a light on Disney, but the comparison between the two is not the only reason to notice there are problems in the parks. You don't need to be in love with what Universal is doing to think Disney has problems.

For my own reasons, I haven’t set foot in Universal since 1994 and probably won’t find myself there again for at least another few years. But without any allegiance to or love of what is happening over at Universal, I still believe Disney (mostly Epcot and DHS) has lost its way somewhat. I can still notice that it has changed from what it once was by comparing it to its own past self. I can see both positive changes and negative changes from my first visits way back in the 80’s, but in those two parks specifically I think the negative outweighs the positive.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Is a theme park without theme still a theme park?

 

[marni1971]

The parks are much better now.

No they're not.

 

[marni1971]

I have three possibilities.

You forgot the 4th. Convenient huh?

 

[dadddio]

@dadddio Why is a Frozen overlay of Maelstrom a good idea? Just your straightforward argument, please.

You've kind of adjusted my position in the question.

The replacement of Maelstrom with a new attraction would be a good idea, in my opinion, because Maelstrom is not that great of a ride and hopefully the replacement would be better. Frozen is a big deal and it's a good match for the Norway pavilion, so it makes sense to theme the attraction to Frozen.

Did I adequately fall into your trap?

 

[jt04]

You forgot the 4th. Convenient huh?

See the fourth in post 2848.

 

[marni1971]

See the fourth in post 2848.

Yep. That's it.

Do the bare minimum whilst increasing prices. Thanks

 

[dadddio]

No they're not.

It's OK that people disagree.

I know that there are loads of people who believe that Epcot as it was originally introduced is vastly superior to the current version. I'm not among them. My memories of Epcot in the early years is that was a good park, but far from a great one. I certainly prefer Future World much more as it is then how it was originally.

 

[marni1971]

I certainly prefer Future World much more as it is then how it was originally.

I'm not picking here, I'm genuinely asking. How can you say that with an out dated Energy, a closed Wonders and Odyssey, closed upper Imagination and lacklustre ride, the thematic mess that the Seas is, a half used Innoventions / Mall, poor Circle of Life and the public realm clutter of the tombstones and the plaza? Amongst many other issues.

Sure, Test Track can be wonderful and Soarin' is popular for what it is, and SSEs ascent is visually stunning but the rest?

Again, not nit picking. A genuine question with respect.

 

[dadddio]

I think there’s a more likely scenario #4 here…

#4 Disney is waiting because they can.

I’m not judging whether its the correct strategy either way, but its clear that Disney knows they have wiggle room built into the market. The can let Universal invest significantly, while they work on infrastructure, efficiency, and DVC while still making positive gains each year. It seems Disney is doing the bare minimum investment in attractions as long as they can get away with it and will react more substantially if and only if they see their numbers dwindle.

I don’t like this strategy personally because it means less development for the parks. But you would have to admit, Disney is being proven right to the extent that regardless of spending, the numbers continue to grow. Unfortunately, reactionary spending may be too little too late by the time it starts to affect revenue and attendance figures and it may take them longer than they think to win back that market share if they let if get to that point.

I think that you are onto something. I also believe that Disney knows that a rising tide lifts all boats.

I think that too many people believe that an increase in the number of people who visits Universal somehow hurts Disney. Conversely, I believe that Universal's success tends to grow the market. I also think that the people who Universal entices to visit central Florida who otherwise wouldn't are somewhat likely to flesh out their vacation with days at WDW. It is interesting to me that this theory in reverse is how Universal initially grew.

I don't really believe that there is going to necessarily be a tipping point that WDW cannot emerge from. Loads of new customers will always flock to WDW. A significant core of WDW guests are not going to walk away simply because Universal is successful.

In my opinion, one of two things are going to happen in the next few years.

1. Someone in charge at Disney is going to get peaved that Universal is growing at a higher rate than WDW and it's star shines brightly on its own. This is going to entice the company to drop big bucks throwning big attractions at the parks, giving us things like Star Wars land or Carsland, et al.
2. Disney is going to ramp up to have big attractions to serve up for the 50th anniversary.

Either way, we win.

 

[Gomer]

I think that too many people believe that an increase in the number of people who visits Universal somehow hurts Disney. Conversely, I believe that Universal's success tends to grow the market. I also think that the people who Universal entices to visit central Florida who otherwise wouldn't are somewhat likely to flesh out their vacation with days at WDW. It is interesting to me that this theory in reverse is how Universal initially grew.

I’ll concede that I also believe there are some who think that Universal’s recent successes will somehow result in Disney quickly losing market share as if the only thing driving theme park attendance is the most recent creative victory. But I don’t see anyone saying that in this thread.

Disney still has its reputation, its loyalists, DVC owners, and those (yes they do exist) who just still prefer it over Universal. But for Disney to count on only those people + bumps from Universal's victories would be a massive overestimation of their own invincibility at the top of the theme park food chain.

I don't really believe that there is going to necessarily be a tipping point that WDW cannot emerge from. Loads of new customers will always flock to WDW. A significant core of WDW guests are not going to walk away simply because Universal is successful.

In my opinion, one of two things are going to happen in the next few years.

1. Someone in charge at Disney is going to get peaved that Universal is growing at a higher rate than WDW and it's star shines brightly on its own. This is going to entice the company to drop big bucks throwning big attractions at the parks, giving us things like Star Wars land or Carsland, et al.
2. Disney is going to ramp up to have big attractions to serve up for the 50th anniversary.

Either way, we win.

I don’t think there is a point of no return either. But I do think it’s possible that Disney will get addicted to its own lack of spending. After you go down this road, it’s hard to justify increasing spending and reducing profit for re-investment in the parks when you’ve already proven you can pull a profit without that spending. Cuts are easy to make. Restoring what was cut is extremely difficult. And unless there is some strong leadership in the company that has the courage to convince people that spending will bring in more profit down the road, I would fear that neither of your 2 scenarios happen.