HKDL gets new castle, frozen land and marvel land.

[no.swatz]

Maybe it existed in their imagination haha

Jokes aside, there's been no mention of the new scene in PhilharMagic. It seems they are just considering it as a simple refurbishment, so that shouldn't be the reimagined attraction either.

However, they are talking about a Marvel expansion without refering to Spider-Man, so maybe the Marvel expansion also includes changes to Space Mountain?

Very curious after what you've said. They may be referring it to a "MARVEL-expansion" because it's not just an attraction coming, there is going to be a new shop and restaurant there (or so called "entertainment"). Also, I don't believe they will be treating the refurb of Philharmagic as a "reimagine", its just an add-on. Tbh, would love to see a new small land dedicated to a PIXAR movie, they called it an "entertainment" area so I'm not sure, maybe a new show area?

 

[BrianLo]

When was the last time this reimagined attraction was mentioned? At this point it just feels like a new plan.

 

[FerretAfros]

Apparently it's an "indoor venue with entertainment of Pixar characters and stories".

Step aside, Monsters Inc Laugh Floor and Alien Swirling Saucers, we have a new acronym in town!

Introducing: Pixar Entertainment Experience!

 

[PiratesMansion]

Step aside, Monsters Inc Laugh Floor and Alien Swirling Saucers, we have a new acronym in town!

Introducing: Pixar Entertainment Experience!

I imagine it won out over similarly names like Pixar Imagination Station Showcase.

 

[co10064]

So, it turns out the Pixar Entertainment Experience was the project they teased was fully funded by HKDL

When you say “fully funded by HKDL,” does that mean it’s completely funded Disney Parks and Experiences? or are there other private investors that own a stake in HKDL?

 

[lazyboy97o]

When you say “fully funded by HKDL,” does that mean it’s completely funded Disney Parks and Experiences? or are there other private investors that own a stake in HKDL?

Hong Kong Disneyland is owned by Hongkong International Theme Parks Limited which is a joint venture between the Government of Hong Kong (52%) and The Walt Disney Company (48%). Prior expansions have relied on money provided by the government and Disney. In this case the owners did not need to provide additional financial assistance.

 

[co10064]

Hong Kong Disneyland is owned by Hongkong International Theme Parks Limited which is a joint venture between the Government of Hong Kong (52%) and The Walt Disney Company (48%). Prior expansions have relied on money provided by the government and Disney. In this case the owners did not need to provide additional financial assistance.

Sorry for not following still
Does that mean previous projects have required investors beyond the HK government and TWDC?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sorry for not following still
Does that mean previous projects have required investors beyond the HK government and TWDC?

No, the government and Disney are the only investors. Hongkong International Theme Parks Limited didn’t have enough money to build all other projects.

 

[BrianLo]

Sorry for not following still
Does that mean previous projects have required investors beyond the HK government and TWDC?

Hong Kong Disneyland is essentially a joint venture that has required infusion of cash from its co-owners to keep expanding. The joint venture is neither Disney proper nor the government. It’s a separate entity that is co-owned by the two.

Past investments have required them to send money in the portion of the ownership. When the venture ran operational losses, Disney extended them a revolving line of credit. But it was sort of arms length.

It’s theoretically an easier proposition when the venture makes money and can fund itself. Disney (or vice versa) doesn’t need to step through as many hoops. Primarily tax payers having to pony up more money or Disney needing to be reportable to their own shareholders. It’s not that they aren’t reportable to either group, but there’s something more palatable by the venture having its own money and therefore not constantly seeking more external investment from its owners.


Generally it’s a good thing and a good structure… but it’s taken 20 years to get where it should have been rather than 5 or so if the resort was built properly from the start. Politically it plays a lot better, if you own local government has public companies and ventures, you’ll know how popular and unpopular the idea of subsidies can seem.

The resort can, In theory, start also seeking financing more reliably than asking the owners for money. For example, a DCL ship.

 

[co10064]

No, the government and Disney are the only investors. Hongkong International Theme Parks Limited didn’t have enough money to build all other projects.

Hong Kong Disneyland is essentially a joint venture that has required infusion of cash from its co-owners to keep expanding. The joint venture is neither Disney proper nor the government. It’s a separate entity that is co-owned by the two.

Past investments have required them to send money in the portion of the ownership. When the venture ran operational losses, Disney extended them a revolving line of credit. But it was sort of arms length.

It’s theoretically an easier proposition when the venture makes money and can fund itself. Disney (or vice versa) doesn’t need to step through as many hoops. Primarily tax payers having to pony up more money or Disney needing to be reportable to their own shareholders. It’s not that they aren’t reportable to either group, but there’s something more palatable by the venture having its own money and therefore not constantly seeking more external investment from its owners.


Generally it’s a good thing and a good structure… but it’s taken 20 years to get where it should have been rather than 5 or so if the resort was built properly from the start. Politically it plays a lot better, if you own local government has public companies and ventures, you’ll know how popular and unpopular the idea of subsidies can seem.

The resort can, In theory, start also seeking financing more reliably than asking the owners for money. For example, a DCL ship.

Makes sense. Thanks!

 

[lazyboy97o]

Past investments have required them to send money in the portion of the ownership.

The one except being the three land expansion of Grizzly Gulch, Mystic Point and Toy Story Land. These were paid for 100% by Disney as a sort of makeup for under building the park. It also increased Disney’s stake in the joint venture.

 

[LameBoi]

Hong Kong Disneyland is essentially a joint venture that has required infusion of cash from its co-owners to keep expanding. The joint venture is neither Disney proper nor the government. It’s a separate entity that is co-owned by the two.

Past investments have required them to send money in the portion of the ownership. When the venture ran operational losses, Disney extended them a revolving line of credit. But it was sort of arms length.

It’s theoretically an easier proposition when the venture makes money and can fund itself. Disney (or vice versa) doesn’t need to step through as many hoops. Primarily tax payers having to pony up more money or Disney needing to be reportable to their own shareholders. It’s not that they aren’t reportable to either group, but there’s something more palatable by the venture having its own money and therefore not constantly seeking more external investment from its owners.


Generally it’s a good thing and a good structure… but it’s taken 20 years to get where it should have been rather than 5 or so if the resort was built properly from the start. Politically it plays a lot better, if you own local government has public companies and ventures, you’ll know how popular and unpopular the idea of subsidies can seem.

The resort can, In theory, start also seeking financing more reliably than asking the owners for money. For example, a DCL ship.

Technically Disneyland Paris is also a separate company that is fully owned by the Walt Disney Company. But because the resort isn’t directly controlled by Burbank, DLP is acts similarly to the Asian parks such as HK, SH, and Tokyo.
All of these international parks have to pay IP licensing fees as well as Imaginnering fees which the domestic parks do not. The Walt Disney Company will always receive a check no matter how good or bad the international parks perform.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Technically Disneyland Paris is also a separate company that is fully owned by the Walt Disney Company. But because the resort isn’t directly controlled by Burbank, DLP is acts similarly to the Asian parks such as HK, SH, and Tokyo.
All of these international parks have to pay IP licensing fees as well as Imaginnering fees which the domestic parks do not. The Walt Disney Company will always receive a check no matter how good or bad the international parks perform.

Even when Euro Disney SCA was publicly, it was still controlled by Burbank. That’s what an SCA is, a special type of partnership where a minority party is in managerial and operational control. It’s also why people could be moved between Euro Disney SCA and other parts of Disney.

Being a wholly owned subsidiary is not unique to Disneyland Paris. What people refer to as “Disney” is very much a collection of different subsidiaries including ones like The Walt Disney World Company. Some of the shell companies used to buy land in Florida even still exist and own some of the land at Walt Disney World. The domestic parks also have to do things like pay Walt Disney Imagineering.

 

[Supersnow84]

Being able to fund the expansions rather than requesting funding from the HK taxpayer will likely do wonders for the parks reputation

This was always a shortcoming of HK over Shanghai in that when the joint venture collectively funds and expansion it’s a proverbial drop in the bucket for the average Chinese taxpayer but HK can only pull from legco’s budget

I’m assuming most HK taxpayers would prefer housing or transportation be funded over the local theme park while Chinese taxpayers wouldn’t even notice the draw from Shanghai Disney

 

[616.1314]

The one except being the three land expansion of Grizzly Gulch, Mystic Point and Toy Story Land. These were paid for 100% by Disney as a sort of makeup for under building the park. It also increased Disney’s stake in the joint venture.

Both the SAR government and Disney funded the three-land expansion in 2009

 

[BrianLo]

Both the SAR government and Disney funded the three-land expansion in 2009

Government announces expansion plan for Hong Kong Disneyland (with video)

On the financing arrangement, TWDC will contribute all the necessary new capital (estimated to be about $3.5 billion) for the construction of the new themed areas as well as for sustaining the park’s operation during the construction years. It will also convert the entire outstanding balance (projected to be $2.76 billion) of its loan to the joint venture to equity.

The Government will not inject any new capital into the expansion plan. Mrs Lau said: “The Government has already made significant contribution towards the development and operation of HKD thus far. However, as a contribution to deleverage the joint venture, the Government is prepared to convert a substantial part of its loan to equity, retaining a balance of not less than $1 billion. The loan-to-equity conversion is subject to approval by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council.

“According to current projections, the Government will continue to be a majority shareholder of HKD after the capital realignment, retaining 52% shareholding,” she said.

 

[Supersnow84]

It’s interesting that they didn’t announce any sort of start or end date for these projects

Arendelle has been open for over a year now and the park doesn’t want to give off the image of stagnation. Shanghai seems to be rounding out the main park in preparation for something big outside of the main park so HK better have something to compete and “tail end of 10 year old expansion plans” doesn’t seem like it’ll cut it compared to arendelle

 

[LameBoi]

With the Pixar Experience opening before Spiderman, many have speculated that it would be a live entertainment venue. That plot of land is too large for just a single theater so could it be sort of Mermaid Lagoon-esque with flat rides and a theater in an enclosed space? If it is, then could Toy Story Land be redeveloped? TSL on the left side of the river has always felt odd as it was shoehorned in since the original concept for that plot, Glacier Bay, was rejected.

 

[no.swatz]

With the Pixar Experience opening before Spiderman, many have speculated that it would be a live entertainment venue. That plot of land is too large for just a single theater so could it be sort of Mermaid Lagoon-esque with flat rides and a theater in an enclosed space? If it is, then could Toy Story Land be redeveloped? TSL on the left side of the river has always felt odd as it was shoehorned in since the original concept for that plot, Glacier Bay, was rejected.

Tbh I feel like it would be similar to the Moana show venue in Adventureland? Like maybe an half-open venue with maybe an immersive queue, not sure. I feel like it will be in a larger scale though. Or maybe they could do something similar to Playhouse in the Woods, enclosed venue with live entertainment performances.

 

[no.swatz]

With the Pixar Experience opening before Spiderman, many have speculated that it would be a live entertainment venue. That plot of land is too large for just a single theater so could it be sort of Mermaid Lagoon-esque with flat rides and a theater in an enclosed space? If it is, then could Toy Story Land be redeveloped? TSL on the left side of the river has always felt odd as it was shoehorned in since the original concept for that plot, Glacier Bay, was rejected.

I kind of understand what you mean though, it would be exciting to see if a PIXAR-themed area have a few flat rides and a show next to it.