Rumors. Musings. Casual.

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
Hello, @pheneix.

I don't know about the insider knowledge about what may or may not be built in the parks, but I do know that everything you've revealed with regard to Disney finances is not inside information, because it's all public knowledge. And Disney talks about it publicly. And we've been discussing it in these forums.

The $9B dollars that Disney had cash on hand grew to $14B. Of course, that was before paying Comcast $9B to take complete ownership of Hulu. Disney may have to pay a few billion more depending on how Hulu's worth is evaluated. But Disney still has a cushion.

In your financial analysis and hearing from insiders, has there been any reckoning that:
  • Disney's revenue from Hulu will now be 50% more from being the sole owner?
  • That Disney+ will be in the black this fiscal year?
  • That Disney's merger of Hulu and D+ will increase the bundle synergy?
  • That the ad-supported tier of D+ in Europe is only now rolling out and will bring in more income?
  • The $7B in savings from all the recent lay-offs?
For Disney, having *only* a few Billion dollars on hand is indeed 'tight' for a company Disney's size, but they also have access to lines of credit for billions more, if needed.

But, because cash on hand is tight, that is why Disney isn't spending the promised $60B in the parks now. And why they said the majority of the $60B will be in the back half of the coming decade. And that's why Disney hasn't been "responding" to Epic Universe. They don't have the massive cash on hand that they usually do.

Of course, Disney *could* borrow, and put itself in $100B debt like Comcast is in. (And people wonder why swaths of land in their parks are sitting idle.)

ESPN is problematic, because, as has been discussed here, Apple and Amazon can drop a nearly unlimited amount of cash (way too much as you rightfully point out) and shut-out Disney and other streamers for sports rights. That's why Disney is looking for sports-partners to alleviate that sports apocalypse.

Yeah, Disney's finances are on a tight margin now. But that's to ensure Disney has a future in home entertainment once linear is dead. I, like others, would love new attractions in the parks. But I understand Disney has to nail down the home entertainment market, which, when it was all-linear, brought in huge amounts of revenue. And that required a big investment (but maybe not a $1.5B quarterly loss under Chapek investment).
His sources are apparently grappling with the current cash situation. The projections you keep referencing are merely that: projections. They haven’t come about yet, and may not. What we do know will come about is the cash paid to Comcast. Incidentally, the more successful and profitable Hulu is viewed, the more Disney will have to pay. It’s not clear how the branding strategy will work long term to fully take advantage of the benefits Hulu brings.

Assuming what you say is true and the billions Disney has invested in DTC turns a profit at the end of Q4. Is this a company that’s acting like it in terms of domestic parks buildouts? Because it sure seems like a division coping with retrenchment, not one that’s acting as if it will be flush in cash in a few months’ time.
 

Jrb1979

Well-Known Member
Disney is not a coaster place…so it’s all relative

Everest doesn’t work as built. It’s incomplete. Id say that an automatic DQ for “best”

It was great in A mode…rode it 4-5 times and thought it was great. WAS
Agreed they aren't but why are they heading that direction?

Throughout the history of the Disney parks, they stayed with what worked. Starting with the "Travel through Inner Space" to the original attractions at Hollywood Studios. There were upgrades and new technology but they for the most part stuck with what worked. Yeah they had their mountain coasts but outside of that stick with AA shows and dark rides.

The last decade they gone away from what worked to adding more thrilling dark rides and coasters. Why the change?
 

Jrb1979

Well-Known Member
Because consumer tastes change.
I know they change but you can't tell it's only happened in the last decade or so. I think it's they see Universal does it and it works.

As another poster said earlier, the additions they have added scream Universal lite. They see Universal adding thrills and it working, so Disney does the same. Problem is IMO they don't want to do it on the level Universal does. Just look at the newest ad for WDW, it's all about Disney thrills. IMO Disney will never compete with Universal and regional parks when it comes to thrills.
 

SuddenStorm

Well-Known Member
Oh good, yes lets compare Peter Pan and Rise.

I think it's an apt comparison. One has been beloved for decades, and despite not having high tech effects its elicits a strong emotional reaction from riders.

Pan is experiential- you're on your own flying over London and through Neverland. It doesn't need a story beyond that. Rise is strictly linear- just point a to point b. Which is fun but can get old. Pan highlights the strengths of early Imagineering and their ability to do a lot with a little.

Rise highlights the weaknesses of modern WDI. Rise's signature effect has been broken basically since it opened- the moving cannons at the end of the ride. It's plagued with frequent break downs and has to operate with reduced hours. It has lackluster capacity for the amount of space it takes up. It was also based on Disney's awful Star Wars trilogy. Rise would be a much stronger attraction if it used OT characters- Vader would look way better as an animatronic than Kylo Ren, Leia and R2 in the preshow, Han instead of Finn, Ackbar instead of fake Ackbar, etc.

Pan has existed as mostly the same experience for 50+ years. I'd bet good money that Rise doesn't look the same in 10 years- let alone 50.
 
Last edited:

MarvelCharacterNerd

Well-Known Member
Yes and yes and it needs to be razed. It’s so awful.
Or it's one of the best, most magical places in DLR overall, with nothing else like it anywhere else in the US parks. Which is the conversation I recently had with a tourist family on their first visit to DLR that I randomly wound up talking to as they were have a wonderful time at Campus. As do those of us who spend a lot of time there regularly.

Not everything is made to please everyone. I have no use for any thrill ride in the resort, but I don't say to tear them down to make more character meet and greets. Although I'd certainly benefit if they did. :)
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Agreed they aren't but why are they heading that direction?

Throughout the history of the Disney parks, they stayed with what worked. Starting with the "Travel through Inner Space" to the original attractions at Hollywood Studios. There were upgrades and new technology but they for the most part stuck with what worked. Yeah they had their mountain coasts but outside of that stick with AA shows and dark rides.

The last decade they gone away from what worked to adding more thrilling dark rides and coasters. Why the change?
Trackless are just elaborate people movers now. Indoors…large quantities…they slap “thrill” on them when they are decidedly not…

Coasters are cheap and easy…for the most part. They also have few things to break…a definite preference over AA rides
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Because consumer tastes change.

Have consumer tastes changed, though? Roller coasters have always been popular; it's not like that's something new in the last 15 years.

But the classic Disney dark rides are still very popular, too. I'm pretty sure if Disney built a high capacity E ticket in the vein of something like Pirates it would be insanely popular -- hell, Na'vi River Journey is a C ticket version of that and it's quite popular. Plus, most of the trackless rides aren't really any more thrilling than the classic Disney attractions; they just sometimes have an overuse of screens in place of physical sets and AAs.

I don't think consumers tastes have changed when it comes to rides. Different people like different things. Disney is just targeting a different audience with some of their newer attractions (although not all of them).
 
Last edited:

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Hello, @pheneix.

I don't know about the insider knowledge about what may or may not be built in the parks, but I do know that everything you've revealed with regard to Disney finances is not inside information, because it's all public knowledge. And Disney talks about it publicly. And we've been discussing it in these forums.

The $9B dollars that Disney had cash on hand grew to $14B. Of course, that was before paying Comcast $9B to take complete ownership of Hulu. Disney may have to pay a few billion more depending on how Hulu's worth is evaluated. But Disney still has a cushion.

In your financial analysis and hearing from insiders, has there been any reckoning that:
  • Disney's revenue from Hulu will now be 50% more from being the sole owner?
  • That Disney+ will be in the black this fiscal year?
  • That Disney's merger of Hulu and D+ will increase the bundle synergy?
  • That the ad-supported tier of D+ in Europe is only now rolling out and will bring in more income?
  • The $7B in savings from all the recent lay-offs?
For Disney, having *only* a few Billion dollars on hand is indeed 'tight' for a company Disney's size, but they also have access to lines of credit for billions more, if needed.

But, because cash on hand is tight, that is why Disney isn't spending the promised $60B in the parks now. And why they said the majority of the $60B will be in the back half of the coming decade. And that's why Disney hasn't been "responding" to Epic Universe. They don't have the massive cash on hand that they usually do.

Of course, Disney *could* borrow, and put itself in $100B debt like Comcast is in. (And people wonder why swaths of land in their parks are sitting idle.)

ESPN is problematic, because, as has been discussed here, Apple and Amazon can drop a nearly unlimited amount of cash (way too much as you rightfully point out) and shut-out Disney and other streamers for sports rights. That's why Disney is looking for sports-partners to alleviate that sports apocalypse.

Yeah, Disney's finances are on a tight margin now. But that's to ensure Disney has a future in home entertainment once linear is dead. I, like others, would love new attractions in the parks. But I understand Disney has to nail down the home entertainment market, which, when it was all-linear, brought in huge amounts of revenue. And that required a big investment (but maybe not a $1.5B quarterly loss under Chapek investment).
Bump
Odd.. I was in Pop Century the past October and December and could easily change the temperature from 66 - 78 degrees.
Wait…why weren’t you using your vacation club?
 

gerarar

Premium Member
Rise highlights the weaknesses of modern WDI. Rise's signature effect has been broken basically since it opened- the moving cannons at the end of the ride. It's plagued with frequent break downs and has to operate with reduced hours. It has lackluster capacity for the amount of space it takes up.

The cannons have last fully worked until December 2020.
The cannons have partially worked until January 2022.
So 2-ish years of cannons. DL had theirs working longer since it opened a bit later.

Only DL operates with reduced hours in the morning and night. WDW always operates theirs the entire day from park opening to close.

Rise has an operational capacity of ~1200/hour. Plus it has a really long extended queue. Would say that's decent for the "experience" it offers.
 

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
They see no value in additions to US parks…because they continue to raise prices with marginal resistance.

It’s not Disneys fault…it’s 100% on the customers who lapped up reduced value in the “Roaring Teens”

We made the bed
Exactly. While people go crazy over DVC trailers, Holiday Inn style resort refurbs, popcorn buckets, pay extra for after hours events and everything else, they just continue to laugh all the way to the bank while they give their “blue sky” presentations of nothing to come.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
The cannons have last fully worked until December 2020.
The cannons have partially worked until January 2022.
So 2-ish years of cannons. DL had theirs working longer since it opened a bit later.

Only DL operates with reduced hours in the morning and night. WDW always operates theirs the entire day from park opening to close.

Rise has an operational capacity of ~1200/hour. Plus it has a really long extended queue. Would say that's decent for the "experience" it offers.
It will be better when someone comes in, removes the mental roadblock, and rethemes it
 

commandorabbit

New Member
It was. I'm just under the impression that's more repeat viewers watching as a background comfort show (like people do with the Office, e.g.) and less gaining younger new viewers.

I'm sure it is gaining some new viewers, but who knows how many.
My kids have the simpsons on in the background while they are doing whatever else on their ipads. I think its because there's 1000 episodes so they can just leave it on without having to manage it.
 

monothingie

Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.
Premium Member
Exactly. While people go crazy over DVC trailers, Holiday Inn style resort refurbs, popcorn buckets, pay extra for after hours events and everything else, they just continue to laugh all the way to the bank while they give their “blue sky” presentations of nothing to come.
Feel Good Animation GIF by Lisa Vertudaches
 

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

Back
Top Bottom