Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

[Haymarket2008]

At this point, and I've said it before, keep Spaceship Earth, Living with the Land and bring back Dreamfinder and they can do whatever they darn well please in Future World after that.

 

[jt04]

So we will get another new land in 2036 then?

Pretty sure.

 

[jt04]

Exactly.

It's a huge problem if it's in the wrong park. Or we get the MK2.0 again.

MK is the most popular theme park in the world for a reason. They can make Epcot more like MK and still have it have a unique aesthetic.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

MK is the most popular theme park in the world for a reason. They can make Epcot more like MK and still have it have a unique aesthetic.

Connected with the monorail, you could go from MK 1.0 to MK 2.0 in less than ten minutes. Use a FastPass to ride the monorail as one of your three attractions to start out with for the day.

 

[Cesar R M]

Connected with the monorail, you could go from MK 1.0 to MK 2.0 in less than ten minutes. Use a FastPass to ride the monorail as one of your three attractions to start out with for the day.

fastpass.. monorail..."three attractions"...

 

[Marc Davis Fan]

:after watching Eisner's last few theme park ventures crash-and-burn (OK, overstatement - "underperform" is more accurate), theme park novice Bob Iger was in no mood to spend money at Parks & Resorts upon assuming the mantle of Disney CEO

I don't think this is correct, in fact I see sort-of the opposite. I think Eisner's low-budgeting for the new parks in the second half of his reign (DCA, WDSP, HKDL) may have helped persuade Iger that parks/attractions need to be higher-quality and bigger-budget. Thus, among his first moves were major, high-budget expansion projects at DCA, WDSP, and HKDL, along with a new park that's much higher-budget than those built under the second half of Eisner's reign.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't think this is correct, in fact I see sort-of the opposite. I think Eisner's low-budgeting for the new parks in the second half of his reign (DCA, WDSP, HKDL) may have helped persuade Iger that parks/attractions need to be higher-quality and bigger-budget. Thus, among his first moves were major, high-budget expansion projects at DCA, WDSP, and HKDL, along with a new park that's much higher-budget than those built under the second half of Eisner's reign.

Iger's big budget reinvestments at Hong Kong Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure came at the demands of third parties who were previously promised more. Walt Disney Studios Park has not had a big budget expansion. The defining characteristic of most of Iger's spending has been that it is at the behests of others while Disney still tried to do avoid building attractions. Even now, with all of the expense, Disney isn't building many attractions.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I don't think this is correct, in fact I see sort-of the opposite. I think Eisner's low-budgeting for the new parks in the second half of his reign (DCA, WDSP, HKDL) may have helped persuade Iger that parks/attractions need to be higher-quality and bigger-budget. Thus, among his first moves were major, high-budget expansion projects at DCA, WDSP, and HKDL, along with a new park that's much higher-budget than those built under the second half of Eisner's reign.

One of the enduring myths in the Disney fan community is that Disney CEO Michael Eisner cut expenditures after Disney President Frank Wells died in 1994. The reality is that Disney spent even more. Instead, it was the collapse of the travel industry precipitated by 9/11 that caused Eisner to curtail Parks & Resorts investments.

The problem in the 1990s was not lack of spending. Instead, it was lack of focus. Eisner tried to do too much all at once. In trying to do too much, he did a lot of things badly. All projects suffered.

Separately, note that growth capex dropped to negative for the first time ever once Bob Iger took the helm in 2005. Iger slashed budgets so much that the parks were no longer being properly maintained. Quality suffered.

To date, Iger's big capex items have been:

• Disney Dream
• Disney Fantasy
• Cars Land
• Shanghai Disneyland

None of these help Orlando. In Orlando, My Disney Experience was expensive but capex was low for the project; its costs were buried elsewhere. As far as Disney budgets go, the New Fantasyland was small, barely noticeable among Disney's other big ticket items.

Restating what I wrote early, Walt Disney World is long overdue for some serious investment dollars. It's getting them now. Walt Disney World fans should be happy.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Restating what I wrote early, Walt Disney World is long overdue for some serious investment dollars. It's getting them now. Walt Disney World fans should be happy.

Disney's inflated expense reduce the impact of that spending. There is also no positive correlation between dollars spent and matters such as theme and customer service.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Disney's inflated expense reduce the impact of that spending. There is also no positive correlation between dollars spent and matters such as theme and customer service.

Disney's Imagineering has always been expensive, even when Walt Disney ran the organization. Attractions such as Tower of Terror (1994) or Expedition Everest (2006) probably would have been a fraction of their costs if built by someone else.

When comparing Disney's expenditures with someone else's (e.g. Universal), you raise a valid concern. However, when comparing Disney with itself, it's unclear how the current Imagineering team stacks up against its predecessors.

 

[Mike S]

Iger's big budget reinvestments at Hong Kong Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure came at the demands of third parties who were previously promised more. Walt Disney Studios Park has not had a big budget expansion. The defining characteristic of most of Iger's spending has been that it is at the behests of others while Disney still tried to do avoid building attractions. Even now, with all of the expense, Disney isn't building many attractions.

I think the new round of HKDL expansion is like that too right?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I think the new round of HKDL expansion is like that too right?

Definitely this part. HKDL went from getting a second gate to a modest, but expensive expansion of HKDL.

Iger's big budget reinvestments at Hong Kong Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure came at the demands of third parties who were previously promised more.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think the new round of HKDL expansion is like that too right?

The three lands expansion was funded 100% by Disney. The recent announcements are to be funded following the ownership split which would see Hong Kong covering just over half of the costs.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

When comparing Disney's expenditures with someone else's (e.g. Universal), you raise a valid concern. However, when comparing Disney with itself, it's unclear how the current Imagineering team stacks up against its predecessors

Poorly. Walt Disney Imagineering regularly receives Tokyo DisneySea level budgets for its projects, which result in very detailed work, but substance is lacking or, quoting Tim Delaney, "it's all frosting and no cake".

 

[ParentsOf4]

The defining characteristic of most of Iger's spending has been that it is at the behests of others while Disney still tried to do avoid building attractions. Even now, with all of the expense, Disney isn't building many attractions.

Please consider that Hogsmeade added one attraction, Diagon Alley added two (one of which was designed as a park-to-park upsell), while Cars Land added one marquee attraction, with two minor ones. All three are critical and financial successes.

I don't think it's the number of attractions added that is of primary importance. Instead, it's the immersiveness of the experience that gets you to open your wallet.

22 years after its introduction, I still am blown away by Tower of Terror. It's not simply the ride itself; it's everything that leads up to it. Looming in the distance even before entering the park. Strolling down the thematically appropriate Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards, which set a mood. Passing the Citizens of Hollywood putting on a show. The detail of the queue, both outdoors and indoors. The preshow. It's the entire experience that makes Tower of Terror something special, that makes me want to visit Disney Hollywood Studios.

That's what Disney needs to create with Pandora and Star Wars Land.

 

[jt04]

Please consider that Hogsmeade added one attraction, Diagon Alley added two (one of which was designed as a park-to-park upsell), while Cars Land added one marquee attraction, with two minor ones. All three are critical and financial successes.

I don't think it's the number of attractions added that is of primary importance. Instead, it's the immersiveness of the experience that gets you to open your wallet.

22 years after its introduction, I still am blown away by Tower of Terror. It's not simply the ride itself; it's everything that leads up to it. Looming in the distance even before entering the park. Strolling down the thematically appropriate Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards, which set a mood. Passing the Citizens of Hollywood putting on a show. The detail of the queue, both outdoors and indoors. The preshow. It's the entire experience that makes Tower of Terror something special, that make me want to visit Disney Hollywood Studios.

That's what Disney needs to create with Pandora and Star Wars Land.

Seems like they have that accomplished. Imagineering costs more because Disney sets the standard that others emulate.

Similar to the way Apple set the standard for so many years. If Disney ever goes cheap on Imagineering it will suffer decline.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Please consider that Hogsmeade added one attraction, Diagon Alley added two (one of which was designed as a park-to-park upsell), while Cars Land added one marquee attraction, with two minor ones. All three are critical and financial successes.

I don't think it's the number of attractions added that is of primary importance. Instead, it's the immersiveness of the experience that gets you to open your wallet.

22 years after its introduction, I still am blown away by Tower of Terror. It's not simply the ride itself; it's everything that leads up to it. Looming in the distance even before entering the park. Strolling down the thematically appropriate Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards, which set a mood. Passing the Citizens of Hollywood putting on a show. The detail of the queue, both outdoors and indoors. The preshow. It's the entire experience that makes Tower of Terror something special, that make me want to visit Disney Hollywood Studios.

That's what Disney needs to create with Pandora and Star Wars Land.

Attractions are what provide additional capacity. Attractions per Guest per Hour is an important metric and Disney has been straining that number for some time. The result has been growing dissatisfaction and the slow realization that content is king.

 

[marni1971]

Imagineering costs more because Disney sets the standard that others emulate.
.

Incorrect. I'd hate to think anyone would think that is true, hence I thought it should be flagged up.

 

[jt04]

Incorrect. I'd hate to think anyone would think that is true, hence I thought it should be flagged up.

And you know an entity doing better work? Please post a link, I am very interested to read about it.

 

[marni1971]

And you know an entity doing better work? Please post a link, I am very interested to read about it.

Anyone with an inkling of how WDI works - and the industry in general - would already know the answer to your original post.