proof that WDW has done nothing to improve the parks in yeqrs

Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
I guess that whole topic has been somewhat blown out of the water. Would we like more, I'm sure we would, but we don't run Disney do we? As for the 5th gate. I am puzzled as to how we can come up with an expected time frame for one anyway. Disneyland Resort didn't add another park for almost 50 years. Why would WDW be due one, especially if they really haven't seen where adding another park would benefit anyone. They can't fill the ones they have, what could they possibly do with another.

Universal has changed a lot (recently) but they have to keep building for many years to even begin to have the numbers of 1) attractions and 2) market share that Disney currently holds. By the looks of things Universal hasn't hurt Disney at all. If anything it has helped. They aren't panicking about it, why are we?
 
Hakunamatata

Hakunamatata

Le Meh
Premium Member
seascape said:
There is no reason given all the tourists in Orlando and the local population that Disney could not draw 200,000, people a day to their parks by 2021 if they took proper steps and upgrade as I said and built a 5th gate. The are currently 50,000 hotel and timeshare units that do or will have access to the internal Disney road system. Orange Lake will have access once Flamingo Crossing is built. That is how I count 50,000. But Flamingo Crossing is supposed to add 5000 to that. Now if Disney build more hotel and DVC'S the number will be higher. Also there is no reason they can't get those on property to send another day of their vacation on property rather than go to Universal. Disney needs to grow WDW to maximize it's profits. The time has come. They have invested in the technology to make it happen now all that is needed is the last step.
Click to expand...
I see where you are coming from. All they need to do is take the forced distribution of timed plans currently available and apply a regimented application of process development to affectuate the proper outcome. Barring cyclical downturns in the availability of raw consumer goods, Disney could implement an aggressive build out of stagnant infrastructure further enhancing discretionary income. It's a solid plan for sure.
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
I have always wondered how much customer growth potential there really is at WDW? Short of drastic reductions in prices is there anything WDW could do that would lead to significant gains in attendance.

I do agree with the OP that more is needed, I just don't think a 5th gate is needed, nor to I think they kinds of gains he is talking about are possible in that time frame.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
crispy said:
Imagine Chris Farley saying this - "So maybe the OP isn't good with "dates" and "numbers" and maybe "logic" isn't his thing. And maybe he's just a "troll" wanting to start a "flame" war."

I still agree with him that the parks are stale.
Click to expand...
They are only stale to those of us that have been a gazillion times. To the majority of the guests these days they are brand new. We have got to try and remember that the parks are not really designed to make our obsessiveness fully satisfied.
 
Kman101

Kman101

Well-Known Member
I do frequently hear people refer to WDW as the kiddie park. And no offense parents, please don't think I'm wanting your kids kicked out and to not have anything to do, but that right there tells me there's probably a large audience who just wouldn't even think of setting foot there. However, and I know I shouldn't compare, but Universal is now seen as a FAMILY experience and not "kiddie central" or "teen central". WDW was the epitome of this but their need to have promos and commercials that clearly cater to the little ones, and rides changed JUST because little Timmy or Suzie gets a little scared? There are going to be some rides kids just can't or shouldn't go on. And why is it such blasphemy if adults want a few sections devoted just to them. Even Disney Cruise Line gets that. If WDW wants to grow then they have to remember what audience they used to appeal to. They claim it is family but it's really about appealing to children. And I have nothing against kids, just throwing that out there. I love nothing more than seeing the joy on the kids as they take in everything and even the little things you bypass, they notice and want to play with or enjoy or talk about. I get that, but the parks need to appeal to each generation and age range, not just one.

And Disneyland doesn't cater to just children and they seem to do just fine.
 
Last edited:
S

seascape

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I agree they have spent money. In fact I believe the roads and the money on technology has been well spent
There are many here who will tear my head off for that view. I love magic bands and fast pass plus. That is what will allow for a major expanding of the existing parks that need upgrading and for a 5th park. This will cost several billions but so what. Why did they spend 2 billion for the technology if they will not use it to its maximum. The time has come to fight back for market share and grow. After all looks at Walt and his history. He always took major risks and they paid off. Spending 3 to 4 billion more on expansion and a 5th gate will pay for itself in no time and even if it were not as successful as I believe it will be they still make enough money to pay for it. They need more attractions to continue to sell DVC'S at huge profits.
 
Hakunamatata

Hakunamatata

Le Meh
Premium Member
seascape said:
I agree they have spent money. In fact I believe the roads and the money on technology has been well spent
There are many here who will tear my head off for that view. I love magic bands and fast pass plus. That is what will allow for a major expanding of the existing parks that need upgrading and for a 5th park. This will cost several billions but so what. Why did they spend 2 billion for the technology if they will not use it to its maximum. The time has come to fight back for market share and grow. After all looks at Walt and his history. He always took major risks and they paid off. Spending 3 to 4 billion more on expansion and a half 5th gate will pay for itself in no time and even if it were not as successful as I believe it will be they still make enough money to pay for it. They need more attractions to continue to sell DVC'S at huge profits.
Click to expand...
I would love to see your research that supports this. You must have amassed a significant amount of data.
 
crispy

crispy

Well-Known Member
Goofyernmost said:
They are only stale to those of us that have been a gazillion times. To the majority of the guests these days they are brand new. We have got to try and remember that the parks are not really designed to make our obsessiveness fully satisfied.
Click to expand...

Things like Ellen's Universe of Energy is stale - period. I don't care who you are or how many times you been or not been. Alex Trebek still has dark hair and a mustache in those videos. Let's not forget Captain EO with Michael Jackson - a guy who died for 5 years. I could go on (and on and on), but there is a lot that is stale even to the casual visitor.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
seascape said:
I agree they have spent money. In fact I believe the roads and the money on technology has been well spent
There are many here who will tear my head off for that view. I love magic bands and fast pass plus. That is what will allow for a major expanding of the existing parks that need upgrading and for a 5th park. This will cost several billions but so what. Why did they spend 2 billion for the technology if they will not use it to its maximum. The time has come to fight back for market share and grow. After all looks at Walt and his history. He always took major risks and they paid off. Spending 3 to 4 billion more on expansion and a 5th gate will pay for itself in no time and even if it were not as successful as I believe it will be they still make enough money to pay for it. They need more attractions to continue to sell DVC'S at huge profits.
Click to expand...
When Walt took those risks it was to design and build something that didn't exist anyplace else. His formula worked well. It can be compared to the auto industry. Someone took an initial chance and manufactured automobiles. Since then many have come in and built basically the same thing and took the market share away from the original idea.

So what does Disney do to take a chance on what is entertainment that is now copied by many places. They only way they can do something that would be considered a "risky" investment would have to do with something other then a theme park. Even he had turned his attention away from theme parks and, at the time of his death, was concentrating fully on building a community, not a theme park. They have done that to some extent with the building of more resorts, DVC's, new Technology (My Magic) and perhaps some area that we haven't even considered yet, like buying Lucas, etc. leading to more diversification and a more stable financial outlook. Disney is now a lot more then Disneyland and a few feature length cartoons. Let's face it, a ride is a ride is a ride and it really doesn't matter where it is placed. A fifth gate has no guarantee of a quick return on investment if nothing else I'd have to say that DAK is a great example of that. All it did was increase the expense for the same or less return on a daily basis.

Most people that I have spoken with, in today's world, usually only have 1 week to vacation and that includes travel time. If you build something that requires 7 days and all you have to spare is 6 how will that increase anything? No... they do need to rebuild DHS, Epcot and DAK (in that order after Pandora) but that has to happen a long time before adding any new park.
 
Andrew C

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Goofyernmost said:
When Walt took those risks it was to design and build something that didn't exist anyplace else. His formula worked well. It can be compared to the auto industry. Someone took an initial chance and manufactured automobiles. Since then many have come in and built basically the same thing and took the market share away from the original idea.

So what does Disney do to take a chance on what is entertainment that is now copied by many places. They only way they can do something that would be considered a "risky" investment would have to do with something other then a theme park. Even he had turned his attention away from theme parks and, at the time of his death, was concentrating fully on building a community, not a theme park. They have done that to some extent with the building of more resorts, DVC's, new Technology (My Magic) and perhaps some area that we haven't even considered yet, like buying Lucas, etc. leading to more diversification and a more stable financial outlook. Disney is now a lot more then Disneyland and a few feature length cartoons. Let's face it, a ride is a ride is a ride and it really doesn't matter where it is placed. A fifth gate has no guarantee of a quick return on investment if nothing else I'd have to say that DAK is a great example of that. All it did was increase the expense for the same or less return on a daily basis.

Most people that I have spoken with, in today's world, usually only have 1 week to vacation and that includes travel time. If you build something that requires 7 days and all you have to spare is 6 how will that increase anything? No... they do need to rebuild DHS, Epcot and DAK (in that order after Pandora) but that has to happen a long time before adding any new park.
Click to expand...

If Walt magically lived on for years, we definitely would not have the parks around the world we see today. He would have been done with all that long ago. As you mentioned, the original EPCOT idea was on his mind at his death, not just another theme park.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
crispy said:
Things like Ellen's Universe of Energy is stale - period. I don't care who you are or how many times you been or not been. Alex Trebek still has dark hair and a mustache in those videos. Let's not forget Captain EO with Michael Jackson - a guy who died for 5 years. I could go on (and on and on), but there is a lot that is stale even to the casual visitor.
Click to expand...
It is not who is in it. It could have easily have unknowns in the lead roles, it's the topic and how it is presented that matters to people that have never seen it before. When is the last time you saw much of anything on Dumbo or Peter Pan or for that matter Winnie the Pooh. It's the attraction that is new to them, not necessarily who performed in them. Just because it is stale to you does not classify it as stale to the planet. If they gave Alex grey hair and shaved is mustache what would that change?
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
Goofyernmost said:
It is not who is in it. It could have easily have unknowns in the lead roles, it's the topic and how it is presented that matters to people that have never seen it before. When is the last time you saw much of anything on Dumbo or Peter Pan or for that matter Winnie the Pooh. It's the attraction that is new to them, not necessarily who performed in them. Just because it is stale to you does not classify it as stale to the planet. If they gave Alex grey hair and shaved is mustache what would that change?
Click to expand...
Changing Trebek's hair wouldn't do much, you're right. A complete update and new movie would do wonders however.
 
crispy

crispy

Well-Known Member
Goofyernmost said:
It is not who is in it. It could have easily have unknowns in the lead roles, it's the topic and how it is presented that matters to people that have never seen it before. When is the last time you saw much of anything on Dumbo or Peter Pan or for that matter Winnie the Pooh. It's the attraction that is new to them, not necessarily who performed in them. Just because it is stale to you does not classify it as stale to the planet. If they gave Alex grey hair and shaved is mustache what would that change?
Click to expand...

We can agree to disagree because I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Classic cartoon characters don't age - Alex Trebek does. I would also argue that Peter Pan is a classic attraction with timeless appeal while Captain EO looks like exactly what it is - very bad, dated sci-fi from the 80s with a now-dead lead.

We visited Busch Gardens Williamsburg two years ago and saw their Pirates in 4-D show starring the Leslie Nielsen who died in 2010. I spent the entire time trying to work out how old that show was instead of really enjoying it. It was pretty stale to me although I had never seen it before.
 
Rteetz

Rteetz

Well-Known Member
Where's the proof? ;) :bookworm:

Also don't forget all of the resort work that has been done since 1998. DVC........

This is also a perfect thread for my picture "I can't"
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom