Except people do invest in new roofs that change up the materials. Roofs are less frequent since they’re not seen as much, but people pour thousands into kitchens and bathrooms and the return on that is little more than TV fantasy.
That's an odd comparison though. People redo kitchens and bathrooms because they get tired of the look, or find some kind of added efficiency (like adding more storage space). It may be harder to objectively define, but the spend is still being done to add some kind of value.
Disney isn't going to change an attraction that they are just tired of. They have to have a plan to recover the enormous costs that go into these redevelopment plans. Although, to amend my statement a bit, I should leave room to allow that they are making changes NOW in order to ensure future revenue for something like the Jungle Cruise.
Yes, you're right, it IS stupid for Disney to do overlays on Space Mountain!
It seems pretty dumb, but they had to have a reason for it. Hyperspace and Ghost Galaxy were both done to sell event tickets for limited time runs. That they didn't really turn out that way just happened to be more of a quirk on how the park operations adjusted to the ginormous amount of Annual Passholders. But it does point out another similar scenario, where Imagineering spent all of this money to build in the infrastructure for a daytime/nighttime show on Space Mountain that ended up never getting used, because the daytime show was popular enough.
But seriously, Disney has been doing this for decades. You speak as if this is some unfathomable thing.
No, I am aware, but I still feel we are disagreeing on the "why" of it. In the times of the old ticket booths, it wasn't uncommon to see attendance at individual attractions decline, and there was a little more motivation when revenue was being generated at the attraction level, to keep updating, replacing, and renovating attractions. There was also, generally speaking, far more unused capacity to be sold in the park back in the old, old days. So it's harder now to see that connection when something gets renovated, to the desire to get more people on the ride or in the queue. To see it as a financial decision rather than a purely creative one.
It's pretty much always going to be cheaper to upgrade an older attraction vs. build a brand new one. And unless they reuse Jungle Cruise's infrastructure it'd be a huge job to do something different there, and since it is a park original, you'd get quite a lot of pushback. Pushback that I'm not sure even modern Disney's ready to deal with.
It will always be cheaper to do nothing. If I'm Disney and I am being asked to spend three million dollars renovating a ride that is already doing fantastic business (near 90% capacity), then the best I can hope for with my three million, is that nothing changes and demand stays high. That's not really a good investment. I could take that three million and invest it into some other project that will bring in more people.
I do think we're getting a little deep into the weeds here, since we all know that Jungle Cruise is being changed out because of the story implications and social pressure, so the math on this is a little different, but the point still remains: They are changing out the ride in order to keep attendance at the ride up, not just now but in the future.
People may not come to the park just to ride Jungle Cruise anymore. It may not be one of the most popular experiences. But it's one of those things that makes Disneyland Disneyland. Because of that, they can't just gut the thing. Even the company knows that. "Maybe later they'll do it," you say. Sure, maybe. But we're not there yet, are we?
Oh no no no, not yet. But 30 or 40 years from now? I suppose it depends on how well audiences love Alberta Falls. Or maybe how much impact climate change has on the jungle or the societal pressure to save water? Maybe they will eventually outlaw gas powered boats? Or how much of a premium they can put on their newest attractions to siphon money off for jungle maintenance. A lot can change in time, and I can't think of a single attraction that hasn't been touched in 50 years...
attractionsmagazine.com
