You look at it from a "this is reality" (and you stated everything I'm aware of, but we can't deny a long period of stagnation; this is catchup and not solving their problems - it's going to create them but yes, they're building and I'm glad they are and they are no doubt spending a LOT of money).
I think we really need to move past this. Yes, WDW stagnated for years. Yes, they underinvested, tried to do quick fixes, tried to coast. And it backfired, and now they are scrambling to catch up. Fine, no one disagrees. So what is Disney of today to do? They can't simply just reverse a decade of stagnation overnight. And to me, I'm more interested in looking at what they are doing
today, which is more building than has happened since the late 90s. Is it everything I want? No. But I'm excited that things are moving now at a fairly robust pace for the first time in a long time. Sure, I can nitpick what's wrong and what they need to do (utilize WoL, Innoventions, add more to the Studios, etc...), but that doesn't change the things they are doing right. I think we could all do with a little bit of a more balanced perspective. The key will be what happens once this current era of capital improvements ends, say in 2021/2022. Will we enter another era of stagnation, or will the investment continue - maybe not at the same scale, but at least at a more consistent cadence?
I'll tell you where I and most are coming from: most look at it from a feelings perspective. The overall feeling is less for more and that's a problem even when it's not a reality. Not being snarky when I say this but do we have a dedicated thread or list anywhere for what's been lost capacity wise over the years to what we have now? What entertainment has been lost and not replaced? I'm actually interested in something like this. Because I know where you were coming from with your reply to me, but I do use logic
I know where we are at but the overall feeling is we're getting less for more. Any magic answer why that is?
I don't think capacity comparisons tell the whole story. Utilization and guest satisfaction have to be considered as well.. For SWGE, for example, let's say the two rides (and new land) have a lower theoretical hourly capacity than the Lights Motor Action show and the Backlot Tour. Making up #'s here, let's say LMA had 5000 hourly capacity and Backlot Tour had 4000. And let's say that the new SW attractions have a 2000 pph capacity each. Now that's a net-loss of 5000 pph (again, making up #'s for illustration here).
Now, I haven't personally gone on Backlot Tour in years, it has deteriorated to a shell of it's former self IMO. As far as LMA, it was fine, but it was something that I only went to occasionally as it wasn't a must do for every trip, and I rarely saw it even half full. I wouldn't be surprised if Backlot Tour was similar. So let's say that each of those averaged only 50% utilization. So that changes things - they really only handled 4500 pph, which is only marginally more than the two SWGE E-tickets. Now let's take the fact that SWGE is a full land, with dining, a store, and some immersive elements.
Now, let's look at quality/guest satisfaction. A good development strategy for Disney is to both build new
and replace/update old attractions that aren't very popular anymore. Are there really that many people sad that Stitch is gone, and will anyone really be bitter about the fact that Stitch is gone once a new attraction is in place? Probably very few (I know that Stitch has a few fans, although I can't comprehend why).. I bet most people would feel similar if they shut down Nemo and Friends and replaced it with an e-ticket, or even a better-executed C.. Tired attractions need to be replaced. Ellen's Energy Adventure needed to go. We can all argue that what replaced it wasn't the right move, but I doubt many people here would really even defend the Ellen show as it existed when it closed (Although many, myself included, would have preferred an updated show that kept the Dinosaurs and the theater-car concept). Same with GMR - it has performed very low in satisfaction scores, so something needed to change. Disney decided that it wasn't worth the necessary reinvestment. Do I wish they had kept it? Absolutely. But I can understand where they were coming from on this one, even if I don't like it...
So old capacity/new capacity is only one data point, and not even the most important one IMO when it comes to evaluating plans.
