Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter

[MattM]

Does anyone else ever think, "Wow, we are seriously arguing about logistics of theme parks in Central Florida while actual issues such as war and extreme violence are taking place all over the world"? Not saying that caring about Universal and Disney parks is bad, but when you put it in a different perspective, it loses it's meaning. I'm just glad I live close enough to Universal and Disney and am able to enjoy the world class parks that they provide.

Of Course. But this isnt warandextremeviolenceallovertheworldmagic.com

 

[MattM]

When people dance around simple, direct questions, I do wonder why.

Because we're plants. It's the only rational explanation

 

[MattM]

It's the same 'we don't need to worry about those customers... we have millions of others..' type of thinking that sank detroit when toyota and honda ramped up in the domestic market. The proverbial canary in the coal mine. Disney is counting on the inertia of their past instead of paying attention to what's happening outside their bubble.

To be fair, Toyota and Honda spent far less money building a product that was far superior to what was coming out of Detroit. We all know what I'm talking about, and not wanting to get into that argument, but it's not just that Detroit stopped caring about its customers.

 

[MattM]

CityWalk is not filled with thugs, lol. It is a vibrant, hopping, energetic kind of place late at night. It's a little more vibrant and energetic than I like on a regular basis...but I'm getting old, lol.

We're not talking about the times right after the park closes. City Walk is sketch.

 

[MattM]

Everyone knows this boom at UNI is a finite period.. just like DCAv2 was a finite expansion. It's only you and the pig who are trying to blur short term vs long term actions.

I agree, but at what point does UNI sitting on the current attractions that they are building now start to become a problem as described in your post #6382?

 

[John]

I am going to jump in here and go way off track here ( like that ship hasn't sailed already) but sometime a go in this thread I mentioned a story about my mother being canned by Disney after 17 yrs of service. I just received word that all is well. Things have been ironed out. She is just going to retire permanently and not work a reduced schedule. Which given the headaches of the last two years and the emotional roller coaster this has been she is done with it.

 

[thehowiet]

I am going to jump in here and go way off track here ( like that ship hasn't sailed already) but sometime a go in this thread I mentioned a story about my mother being canned by Disney after 17 yrs of service. I just received word that all is well. Things have been ironed out. She is just going to retire permanently and not work a reduced schedule. Which given the headaches of the last two years and the emotional roller coaster this has been she is done with it.

Glad to hear everything got worked out. Sometimes you hear/read stuff like this and then it just disappears, so thanks for the update.

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

I am going to jump in here and go way off track here ( like that ship hasn't sailed already) but sometime a go in this thread I mentioned a story about my mother being canned by Disney after 17 yrs of service. I just received word that all is well. Things have been ironed out. She is just going to retire permanently and not work a reduced schedule. Which given the headaches of the last two years and the emotional roller coaster this has been she is done with it.

Thanks for the update. Glad things finally worked out, it's a shame she had to go through that.

We need more positivity in this thread before people start biting each others ankles.

 

[flynnibus]

To be fair, Toyota and Honda spent far less money building a product that was far superior to what was coming out of Detroit. We all know what I'm talking about, and not wanting to get into that argument, but it's not just that Detroit stopped caring about its customers.

Detriot got complacent. They thought they didn't need to change. Who needs small economical cars? Quality? We're good enough... It's not so much as 'not caring about customers' as it is not being in-tune with them and taking them for granted.

That's the exact type of complacency that is haunting Disney right now. The 'good enough' attitude with their attendance bolstered by their inertia. They can do nothing and the money just keeps coming... they are coasting while cutting back all the things that built up that interia.

 

[flynnibus]

I agree, but at what point does UNI sitting on the current attractions that they are building now start to become a problem as described in your post #6382?

You're comparing different things. Sitting on attractions (no longer expanding) is not the same thing as using margin improvement as your growth model. You can still get healthy performance and even growth without a full blown capital expansion of the property. UNI is in an expansion and turn-over right now.. that is not a perpetual thing. That is a phase that has an end.. and then you work to benefit from that expansion.

Updating, refresh, new entertainment are things the business does as continual improvements that you do on cycles to keep your product new and interesting.

 

[MattM]

Detriot got complacent. They thought they didn't need to change. Who needs small economical cars? Quality? We're good enough... It's not so much as 'not caring about customers' as it is not being in-tune with them and taking them for granted.

That's the exact type of complacency that is haunting Disney right now. The 'good enough' attitude with their attendance bolstered by their inertia. They can do nothing and the money just keeps coming... they are coasting while cutting back all the things that built up that interia.

I absolutely agree that is one reason why Detroit has been in decline. It is certainly not the only reason though.

 

[MattM]

You're comparing different things. Sitting on attractions (no longer expanding) is not the same thing as using margin improvement as your growth model. You can still get healthy performance and even growth without a full blown capital expansion of the property. UNI is in an expansion and turn-over right now.. that is not a perpetual thing. That is a phase that has an end.. and then you work to benefit from that expansion.

Updating, refresh, new entertainment are things the business does as continual improvements that you do on cycles to keep your product new and interesting.

Again, I agree with you overall. The phase will no doubt have to end. But how long do you just work to benefit from the expansion before internet forums start thinking your product becomes stale?

 

[flynnibus]

Again, I agree with you overall. The phase will no doubt have to end. But how long do you just work to benefit from the expansion before internet forums start thinking your product becomes stale?

Now you dive into personal tastes and preferences A lot has to do with the content.. does it age well? Is it timeless? Will the experience be superseded or made redundant? This of course is one of the arguments against these movie properties... that they will not have that appeal that spans social or generational changes.

Ignoring actual maintenance/upkeep... I think Disney has proven you can create attractions that can last 20+ years without being seen as stale. But I think those are the true winners.. most are probably more on the lifespan of about 10 years or less. IMHO.. if it can't last 10 years... it was probably too vulnerable in one or more dimensions.

But the original conversation was more about a model of... Do you strive to make your product successful for growth... or do you find growth by trimming costs?

Trimming costs should be about efficiency... not a business plan for your growth.

 

[ctxak98]

Now you dive into personal tastes and preferences A lot has to do with the content.. does it age well? Is it timeless? Will the experience be superseded or made redundant? This of course is one of the arguments against these movie properties... that they will not have that appeal that spans social or generational changes.

Ignoring actual maintenance/upkeep... I think Disney has proven you can create attractions that can last 20+ years without being seen as stale. But I think those are the true winners.. most are probably more on the lifespan of about 10 years or less. IMHO.. if it can't last 10 years... it was probably too vulnerable in one or more dimensions.

While I do think Disney has created some great attractions not based on franchises, I do however think they create great attractions based on franchises or movies etc... The argument that a franchise wont last is kind of lame IMO. I mean sure the franchise itself might not be as popular later on in life but that doesn't mean its no good anymore!

The exception for a franchise based attraction that doesn't work, comes into play when the ride isn't that good to begin with. IMO Universal has made a LOT of franchise attractions that could have been better or more exciting. King Kong and Jaws were basically the same ride except one was hanging and with a giant monkey, and one was in the water with a giant shark. I think if they made those rides less cheesy and more thrilling, Like they should have been, They might still be there today instead of being replaced! Just my two cents. If you make the attraction good, it will do well for a long time.

 

[Tim_4]

While I do think Disney has created some great attractions not based on franchises, I do however think they create great attractions based on franchises or movies etc... The argument that a franchise wont last is kind of lame IMO. I mean sure the franchise itself might not be as popular later on in life but that doesn't mean its no good anymore!

The exception for a franchise based attraction that doesn't work, comes into play when the ride isn't that good to begin with. IMO Universal has made a LOT of franchise attractions that could have been better or more exciting. King Kong and Jaws were basically the same ride except one was hanging and with a giant monkey, and one was in the water with a giant shark. I think if they made those rides less cheesy and more thrilling, Like they should have been, They might still be there today instead of being replaced! Just my two cents. If you make the attraction good, it will do well for a long time.

I agree completely and that's my argument in favor of Avatar. Even if the future films are never made and people forget the original, the world of Pandora has all the ingredients of a theme park land that can stand on it's own. I think Universal's one mistake with Potter is using the film version of things. Harry Potter will be relevant for much longer than "Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter" will be.

 

[flynnibus]

The argument that a franchise wont last is kind of lame IMO. I mean sure the franchise itself might not be as popular later on in life but that doesn't mean its no good anymore!

It all depends on the content... would a stage show based on 'Welcome back Kotter' work today? What about a kiddie ride based on pound puppies?

Like I said before.. some content is timeless because what it draws upon for its strengths can transcend long periods of time. Others.. not so much. Each really needs to be looked at individually.

The exception for a franchise based attraction that doesn't work, comes into play when the ride isn't that good to begin with. IMO Universal has made a LOT of franchise attractions that could have been better or more exciting. King Kong and Jaws were basically the same ride except one was hanging and with a giant monkey, and one was in the water with a giant shark

I don't think so at all... I think what you are influenced by is by being younger you are used to much higher levels of immersion and computer special effects. The physical effects look 'cheezy' to you now. This is an example of where what the attraction relied upon had become superseded by other things. Kong was an attraction like no other in its scale, level of immersion, etc. It was awesome... however it became a bit dated.

I think if they made those rides less cheesy and more thrilling, Like they should have been, They might still be there today instead of being replaced!

Thrill is also a relative thing. If you are a one trick pony where it's all about how far you pushed the thrill.. as soon as someone surpasses that thrill level and you become common place.. you're dead.

 

[twebber55]

Detriot got complacent. They thought they didn't need to change. Who needs small economical cars? Quality? We're good enough... It's not so much as 'not caring about customers' as it is not being in-tune with them and taking them for granted.

That's the exact type of complacency that is haunting Disney right now. The 'good enough' attitude with their attendance bolstered by their inertia. They can do nothing and the money just keeps coming... they are coasting while cutting back all the things that built up that interia.

as a kid who grew up in Detroit and whose father worked for Ford for 39 years the biggest issue was how much you have to pay factory workers because of unions..thats why all these car factories are moving south..no unions less pay

 

[twebber55]

I agree completely and that's my argument in favor of Avatar. Even if the future films are never made and people forget the original, the world of Pandora has all the ingredients of a theme park land that can stand on it's own. I think Universal's one mistake with Potter is using the film version of things. Harry Potter will be relevant for much longer than "Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter" will be.

Totally agree Tim...you dont need the film avatar for it to be successful because of the environment of pandora

 

[ctxak98]

I agree completely and that's my argument in favor of Avatar. Even if the future films are never made and people forget the original, the world of Pandora has all the ingredients of a theme park land that can stand on it's own. I think Universal's one mistake with Potter is using the film version of things. Harry Potter will be relevant for much longer than "Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter" will be.

YES! 100% YES! Avatar is not about the story, That's not what makes it spectacular. Its the surrounding and environment!

 

[ctxak98]

It all depends on the content... would a stage show based on 'Welcome back Kotter' work today? What about a kiddie ride based on pound puppies?

Like I said before.. some content is timeless because what it draws upon for its strengths can transcend long periods of time. Others.. not so much. Each really needs to be looked at individually.



I don't think so at all... I think what you are influenced by is by being younger you are used to much higher levels of immersion and computer special effects. The physical effects look 'cheezy' to you now. This is an example of where what the attraction relied upon had become superseded by other things. Kong was an attraction like no other in its scale, level of immersion, etc. It was awesome... however it became a bit dated.



Thrill is also a relative thing. If you are a one trick pony where it's all about how far you pushed the thrill.. as soon as someone surpasses that thrill level and you become common place.. you're dead.

ummmm...firstly yes it does depend on the right franchise. I never said ALL franchises would work.

I am not that young. I am sorry but Kong was NOT a good attraction! neither was jaws. I think Haunted Mansion is better then both of those attractions! and it was made in the 60's right!? And by Thrill level I did not mean by Fast thrill levels. I just meant that Kong and Jaws are both Monsters in movies and by making the rides come off as spooflike rather then trying to make it more like the movie was just stupid IMO. So much potential that wasn't used!