peter11435
Well-Known Member
Depends on the building. Usually a couple hours before the park opens
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Red Button Option
- Thread starter WDW Pro
- Start date
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
That's exactly the point I was making. The 1,000 vs. 10,000 sqft home comparison was to simplify it for people in terms of something easier to understand.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
That seems shortsighted.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
That’s the Disney way!!! (Lately....)
They stoop down to pick up pennies while dollars fly overhead!
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Well... yeah
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
The humidity is the biggest issue. I worked at a South Florida movie theatre in the mid/late 90's. The corporate office wanted the AC off over night when nobody was in the building. We had to fight with them because if we did what they wanted, the stench of mildew was horrible all the time. We had to have automatic air freshener dispensers to make it bearable for customers. They finally gave in after a site visit.
jt04
Well-Known Member
No proof is probably why. I'm sure as a responsible CEO every contingency is studied but that doesn't mean every contingency is an option they desire to take place.
Goofiest rumor yet on these boards and that is saying something.
If it were to happen at this point expect major streamlining and all the current critics to long for 'the way it used to be'.
HongKongFooy
Well-Known Member
Excellent.....keep it up
You were probably too young or don't recall the Jobs/Iger time. You get a pass..
jt04
Well-Known Member
Nothing but a spirited retcon con. He has a PHD.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Regardless of whether it's true, it's certainly not a goofy rumor. It's very believable that a media CEO wouldn't be interested in managing theme parks. Large corporations sell off parts of the company all the time for various reasons; there's nothing nefarious about it.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Certainly with his public statements on the parks business he had no love or vision for the sector.
Last edited:
Nubs70
Well-Known Member
I know. I was just transferring from 2D reference to 3D and cube to sphere. Spherical reference makes the difference even more stark.
el_super
Well-Known Member
It's a pretty goofy rumor.
This supposedly comes right between him spending a billion dollars on DCA, and him spending 2+ billion on Hong Kong and Paris. It also comes right at a point where they were negotiating for Shanghai Disneyland, so if Iger had any doubts about buying into a resort, wouldn't it be reflected in the deal that made SHDR a reality?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That spending is exactly why he wanted out of the park's business. Those projects were all in response to external pressures.
Shanghai Disneyland does reflect those concerns. The initial build out of Hong Kong Disneyland had Disney responsible for the park and hotels while the SAR was responsible for the land, infrastructure and transportation. Most of the additional $800 million for "additional" opening day attractions was from Shanghai Shendi Group, not Disney. Shanghai learned from Hong Kong not to trust Disney to handle the park on their own but they also ended up contributing to its cost while also doing much of the infrastructure work. Shanghai Disneyland is also the project Michael Eisner could/would not accomplish despite pursuing for nearly a decade.
el_super
Well-Known Member
But I would think, that if Iger was so concerned about owning any share in those parks, that he would have pushed the Shanghai agreement to a model closer to OLC, where the Shendi group would outright own the park, and only contract Disney for licensing and operations. They didn't do that though, and Disney has a co-ownership in the park.
And of course while they were building Shanghai, they ended up spending the money to basically buy out EuroDisney and bring the entire ownership of DLRP under the Disney umbrella. That level of consolidation would seem counter to the idea that Iger was seriously considering selling off the parks.
From a macro level, it also goes counter to Iger's strategy of growing the company so large it would no longer be an acquisition target for the bigger fish in the pond. Those bigger fish would also be the only ones seen as potential buyers of the parks division, so why would they JUST buy the parks, when they could just buy the whole company?
That's why it's a goofy rumor. Even if you want to believe that Iger was serious about selling the parks, there's enough grey area in what serious means, that you can fill it to meet whatever definition you want to believe. It's really no different than the multitude of "Disney is considering building a park in ______" rumors, that are really just more wishful thinking than serious discussion.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Oriental Land Company does not pay for operations. The China model lets Disney have its cake and eat it too. They don't contribute most of the start-up costs, contribute less than half of ongoing costs but receive licensing and operating fees that ensure Disney is making money even if the joint venture is not.
This was years before Disney bought Euro Disney SCA's debt and then was able to acquire the entire operation.
Iger was shutting down divisions to focus on core competencies. It's why he effectively shut down the other studio labels inside Disney.
This was not just kicking around the idea in the board room as a thought exercise.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
They should sell Pixar and not marvel? marvel and fox were big $$$ mistakes imho.
el_super
Well-Known Member
That's debatable though. We basically only have two examples of a licensing-only scenario with Disney parks: OLC and EuroDisney. One worked, and one didn't. I'm not convinced that if a global crisis like a pandemic or economic downturn occurred, that Disney would be shielded from it. If park owners were thrust into a financially weak position due to some calamity, Disney would be in the same exact place they were in with DLRP: either accept no licensing fees and offer bailouts, or admit that the whole venture was a failure and take a huge PR and Brand image hit.
But then maybe that's why they decided it was a terrible idea....
Yet there was no official announcements... nothing picked up by the normal Hollywood insiders? I'm willing to be open minded to the idea that it is more than just a rumor, but I haven't come up with anything significant searching for any confirmation of this other than the normal questionable sources. Maybe it was a footnote in his book? I'll admit I didn't read it.