The sleigh ride on ice reminds me of Luigi's Rollickn' Roadsters. Basically trackless sleighs dancing around.
IF Disneyland is also going to get a clone of the one in Epcot I do hope the rumors of Frozen are wrong.So they described the main Frozen boat ride, Frozen Ever After, scene-by-scene, and it sounds almost identical to Eptcot's. Didn't see that coming
Because a second park would cost more than an expansion in terms of initial build out and then on-going costs. You'd just just another Walt Disney Studios Park.I don't get it. Why spend 1 billion on expansions when they could use that money to build a second gate that could easily include those new lands and generate more revenue and multiple-day tourism? Wouldn't a second park also boost attendance for the castle park?
But wouldn't a second park generate more revenue and more multiple-day visitors and therefore also help the hotels, shopping district and HK tourism in general?Because a second park would cost more than an expansion in terms of initial build out and then on-going costs. You'd just just another Walt Disney Studios Park.
But wouldn't a second park generate more revenue and more multiple-day visitors and therefore also help the hotels, shopping district and HK tourism in general?
Or is there just not demand for a second gate at HK? The way people talked about it these past few months I assumed there was.
Simply having an additional gate does not magically create extra demand, as demonstrated by Disney's Animal Kingdom, Disney's California Adventure and Walt Disney Studios Park.But wouldn't a second park generate more revenue and more multiple-day visitors and therefore also help the hotels, shopping district and HK tourism in general?
Or is there just not demand for a second gate at HK? The way people talked about it these past few months I assumed there was.
But didn't attendance grow considerably at Disneyland after DCA? Like 4 million people a year?Simply having an additional gate does not magically create extra demand, as demonstrated by Disney's Animal Kingdom, Disney's California Adventure and Walt Disney Studios Park.
That's what I always thought. Add another gate and more people come but the new gate helps balance out the crowds. I don't know how Disney could be upset with having 4 parks here in Florida that bring in over 10 million guests each year. I bet if they added a fifth, it would also attain those numbers and the other 4 would continue to bring in just as many guests as they were, or close to it.But didn't attendance grow considerably at Disneyland after DCA? Like 4 million people a year?
I know a lot of people who wouldn't consider making a long trip just to see one Disney park, but they might if it's two or more parks. Like some people travel around the world to go to WDW, just because they have a larger number of parks. And then 10 million people end up going to Animal Kingdom, not because they're crazy about animals, but because they're already there and have purchased a multi-day discounted ticket.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
How it is supposed to work is not how it always work. Even a jump in the millions of guests is not a guaranteed positive if you needed a few more million to make it worthwhile.But didn't attendance grow considerably at Disneyland after DCA? Like 4 million people a year?
I know a lot of people who wouldn't consider making a long trip just to see one Disney park, but they might if it's two or more parks. Like some people travel around the world to go to WDW, just because they have a larger number of parks. And then 10 million people end up going to Animal Kingdom, not because they're crazy about animals, but because they're already there and have purchased a multi-day discounted ticket.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
But didn't attendance grow considerably at Disneyland after DCA? Like 4 million people a year?
I know a lot of people who wouldn't consider making a long trip just to see one Disney park, but they might if it's two or more parks. Like some people travel around the world to go to WDW, just because they have a larger number of parks. And then 10 million people end up going to Animal Kingdom, not because they're crazy about animals, but because they're already there and have purchased a multi-day discounted ticket.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
I'm not into Marvel but the Frozenland looks pretty and the castle is awesome!! I don't like when they just replicate castles - imo every park should have a unique castle. The original Sleeping Beauty Castle is so tiny - it's fine in Disneyland but I never could figure out why they would choose to replicate the smallest one for a newer park. Plus, with the natural landscape around Hong Kong Disneyland, the castle looked even smaller and unimpressive.
The new one is so pretty - it reminds me a lot of the Paris castle which is gorgeous.
I do get your points and the comparisons to DCA and WDS, but if we take those two as examples we'd be assuming HK's second gate would be a cheap and lame park like those two were when first built (and a case could be made that WDS still is). Walt Disney Studios is a park that nobody outside Disney fans even know exist, and the people who do know it would most likely agree it's the worst Disney park worldwide, so no wonder it's not a success. If we assume that HK could build a quality second gate (and that Disney has learned their lesson from what they get building cheap parks) than the original DCA and WDS are not really fair comparisons. And big names like Frozen land and Marvel land would could attract notoriety, so I don't see it becoming an obscure park as WDS.That works because WDW started out with a robust first park. MK was a financial success as they were building a second quality park, Epcot. Each prior park was a success as they were building the next. WDW today is a huge success.
That was also the case when Tokyo Disneyland built DisneySea. Their castle park was a robust financial success as they were building a second quality park, Tokyo DisneySea. The resort today is a huge success.
Let's look at Disneyland Paris. I'd say a good park, but it wasn't a financial sucess for a variety of reasons. Disney went forward with a second park anyway. That second park was cheap and underbuilt. The resort today is losing money, I think, or at least not making much.
DCA was also a failure on all accounts when built. It brought about 3.5 more gate clicks to the resort, but that was not enough to make up for the increase in operational costs. The park was not profitable and the resort became less so. Iger and co. have since remedied that situation, thankfully.
Which group does HKDL fit into? There you have your answer and explanation. I'd say HKDL would become even worse-off than DL circa 2001 and Paris because the first park is not only losing money, it's also underbuilt.
Just to note, this does not mean that they should give up on the park. Prior investment has resulted in profitable times. What Disney needs to do is continue to invest, so that the park becomes filled out with attractions and can maintain that profitability long-term. It worked for DCA. I'm glad they are indeed going this route.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.