Unwillingness to pay themselves equaled closure.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Star Wars Land announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios
- Thread starter CheekBoys
- Start date
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
More then likely connected to capacity and cost issues. To big to support itself popularity wise. Yes, indeed, unwillingness to support it themselves, however, to leave out the reason for the reluctance is a serious disservice to the situation. My opinion is just a guess based on my years in business management, not in fact. However, no company gives up a cash cow if it is producing consistently.
Disney wouldn’t pay for the needed refurbs themselves.
Eisner directly said that about Horizons and JII.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I'm aware of the situation, but, the detail of that decision are not just because they were in a mood that day. The result was encased in events that made it not worth the investment. It really doesn't matter who made the decision, the reason that they felt it not worth the continued investment is what is crucial. We, as individuals, my not agree with the decision, but, it isn't based on nothing but evil. Reality is part of the decision. Without knowing exactly what that was and why they would decide that closing it was financially wiser then pouring more money into it tells the story. Who gave the final word is totally without relevance without knowing the complete motivation. You don't feed oats to a dead horse.
JediMasterMatt
Well-Known Member
The reality is unfortunately that the mindset of Disney needing sponsors to upgrade, let alone operate and maintain, attractions in 2018 is absolute lunacy.
Sponsorship made sense when Walt was blazing a new trail back with the introduction of Disneyland and he was literally betting the company's future on the success of this untested product.
Sponsorship made sense when Walt's company was expanding to the other coast with his distinctly West coast product.
Sponsorship made sense again when the company tried to take the Castle Park magic and try it out on an untested non-IP based product in EPCOT.
It makes sense whenever you are trying to do something new and uncertain and want to hedge your bets (expansion to different countries on different continents).
Sponsorship makes sense anytime you can get a company to volunteer to give you funds to place their name on your product.
Sponsorship doesn't make any sense at all in making operational decisions in the modern day established Disney Parks.
As yesterday's earnings report show, WE (all of us looney fans that visit the places) are the sponsors. We are a veritable ATM for Disney corporate. There is simply no need for sponsors in this day and age. If they want to participate great; but, they are an unnecessary relic from a bygone era of operation.
Did Maelstrom's ride system cease to operate forever because Norway didn't want to pay for upgrading it?
Did Spaceship Earth stop loading passengers because Siemens did pay the bill (or their payment wasn't accepted)?
Operationally Parks is self sufficient. As guests, we've made sure of that. It's time for Parks to stop making decisions about excess corporate payments to line their pocketbooks and make decisions that are in the best interests in the real sponsors of their success... of course, who could blame them for not really caring/trying when they keep putting out subpar quality and we keep gobbling it up.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I don't necessarily disagree with any of your statement, however, first you have to assume that it was the only reason for closing down those attractions. Horizons perhaps would been strongly motivated by the finding of someone that would financially "foot the bill" to replace Horizons with Mission Space. That does contribute to the reasoning, but, first you would be assuming that building Mission: Space is a mistake. I don't believe it was. Horizon had run it's course and was held in worship by a very few of us. Otherwise hardly anyone misses it or even mentions it anymore. We have got to get out of our own heads and understand why things happen in detail, not just in emotion. That may explain Horizons, but, what about the other either deserted, closed or occasional usage. Had they been paying their own way, they would still be there like HM, or PoTC, neither of which have a sponsor, or some of the other old time attractions.
matt9112
Well-Known Member
regardless of the IP popularity the universal resort has MUCH lower crowd levels period. look at how packed Disney PARKS are now I mean really look at that. than add a giant pile of potter on top. universal did not have underlying crowd problems due to underbuilding.
WDWBigEd
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I would love too, however, I'm afraid that some physical problems I have had this past year, into now, will prevent me from heading on down that way for the remainder of the year. I'm even assuming that you are buying.
I can run a Starbucks at EpcotI would love too, however, I'm afraid that some physical problems I have had this past year, into now, will prevent me from heading on down that way for the remainder of the year. I'm even assuming that you are buying.
seriously though, get well soon.
HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
DisneyKid239
Member
Sorry if this has been asked before but once SWL is opened are they are still gonna be running Launch Bay or are they gonna close it down and maybe announce what they are gonna do with Animation Courtyard?
Insiders say there are plans being kicked around, but nothing definite. One plan is to leave it be as another place for the Star War Fan Horde to go when they can't get into Batuu because it's full. With a lack of a definite plan, WDW's track record on such things is to leave it be until there is a definite plan and they're ready to implement the new plan. And with WDW... that could take years.
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
Alright. How are the bathrooms in SWL going to look like?