The Red Button Option

Ravenclaw78

Well-Known Member
I don’t recall Oceaneering being involved in Rise. Are you sure about that or did I misunderstand?
Rise was not the first ride Disney created that uses this iteration of trackless technology. Rise's innovation was in seamlessly combining so many typically distinct elements (trackless vehicles, motion simulators, elevators, and the blaster and lightsaber effects, among others) into a single attraction. I believe he was referring to one or more of the earlier rides to use trackless, such at Rat at DLP.
 

maxairmike

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
I don’t recall Oceaneering being involved in Rise. Are you sure about that or did I misunderstand?

I thought that Oceaneering had been involved with most every small vehicle trackless ride in the industry since Hunny Hunt (wouldn't be surprised if they were collaborators with WDI on it, but info is hard to nail down with trackless tech from a quick search). To what extent I wouldn't venture a guess depending on the attraction, but I'm open to being wrong on that since info on that seems to be scarce because most of the trackless rides are in Disney, and WDI takes the public credit for everything. If someone feels like digging through Fun World there might be mentions in there for Mystic Manor, Rat, etc.

@Ravenclaw78 is exactly right, just referring to the ride system/vehicles (not visually).

Even if Oceaneering is the manufacture, it’s based on technology developed by Disney for Aquatopia. Similarly, the post-Islands of Adventure motion base vehicles for Spider-Man, Transformers and Jurassic World are ordered from Oceaneering but use Universal’s vehicle design and not Oceaneering’s very similar Evolution ride system.

FlIger of Passage is more similar to Brogent’s flying theaters that utilize a motion base than Dynamic Attractions’ but it is still a unique one developed by Disney.

The swinging car for Seven Dwarfs Mine Train was developed by Disney with assistance from Verona as they are the manufacturer. This is different than TRON or Cosmic Rewind where Walt Disney Imagineering was involved in iterating something already developed by Vekoma.

Mater’s and Aliens is inspired by older concepts but ultimately unique to Disney. Zamperla has apparently tried to develop their own version but it is not some5ing that has made it to market.


It seems amusement parks are more your thing than theme parks.

Hmmm...you might be right on Brogent. I thought Dynamic was the main manufacturer from what I had gathered and that I was only familiar with Brogent's rotating design. The point still stands, I don't believe it's a uniquely WDI system, compared to something like Soarin or the omnimovers where those were entirely new and someone was brought in to help make it a reality. As for Seven Dwarves, nah, that was an iteration on the Arrow suspended system from the 80s just done a lot better with the track under instead of overhead. That it hadn't been done before isn't surprising, because I don't expect to see that again outside of blatant knockoffs since it isn't that special of a thing (the original suspended models aren't just maintenance nightmares, they're also not that popular in general) without a thematic reason for it like with Seven Dwarves.

Like I said, I'd concede trackless for the most part initially, but I believe it's much more "off the shelf" now at this point and WDI is only involved in the new "tricks" that aren't related to the core ride system. Again, since trackless seems harder to nail down, I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of the ride system landscape (not differentiating between wire-based like Tower or sensor/location-based).
 

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
I like Universal and they are a theme park. Their dark rides are well done and other then Spiderman and Tramsformers, they are all different with using different ride systems. A dark can be well done with some thrill added in and most of Disney's are family friendly.
You say that last sentence as though that is a negative about Disney. But that's what many people love about Disney.

Thrill rides are a dime a dozen. You can find them within minutes of pretty much anywhere in the United States. There is park after park after park full of them. Doing a well-done, creative, fun, engaging ride that is NOT a thrill ride? That takes some talent.

If I want thrills, I can do it much cheaper and closer by going to King's Island. That is not Disney's niche, nor should it be. And that is not why people flock to Disney parks.
 

tirian

Well-Known Member
RotR had boarding groups that controlled the amount of people who could ride the ride. It's not possible to compare the two headliners of the two lands.

Once RotR opened, the land of Star Wars was as full of people as Pandora has been.
You’re both kind of right; it depends whether we’re talking about California or Florida. It was certainly more successful in Florida, where people (including me) accept it as part of the “Studio” aspect of “Hollywood Studios.”

California’s version was considered a miss among local media and fans. Even the LA Times wrote an article criticizing it. Don’t forget that California rarely needed to use its reservation system, whereas Florida couldn’t survive without it.

It was a shock to Disney corporate, WDI, and many fans (also including me!) when California APs outright rejected SWGE. I don’t like the sequel trilogy either, and I think the land is a creative miss for sticking to Iger’s reign*; but believe it or not, I never understood the complaints about “Walt’s Park” and “DL Magic.” Nobody can deny ROTR is an impressive attraction! California’s reactions ranged from “This isn’t Star Wars” to “It shouldn’t be in Disneyland.”

*just like Mickey’s Runaway Railroad. Sigh.
 

tirian

Well-Known Member
I must admit that I struggle to get particularly outraged at the notion Iger considered the option of selling the parks at some point. Presumably his job was to consider different options rather than just throwing his hands up in horror and this one doesn't seem too out there considering Disney has experience (good and bad) running parks in various arrangements with outside investors. For whatever reason, though, exploring that option doesn't seem to have gotten much further than the (rumoured) meeting/s with potential outside investors.

As for his record running the parks, it seems like a mixed bag to me. Despite his amazing start, though, the same can be said for Eisner. My impression is that Iger doesn't personally enjoy the parks as much as Eisner seemed to, but then Iger during recent years has been far more willing to invest in themed experiences than the stripped-down, 'post-theme' direction that was the hallmark of Eisner by the end of his tenure.
The dirty secret was that many WDW folks were excited by the possibilities and hoped OLC would buy WDW. Gossip gets around fast in the world’s biggest high school. ;)
 

Absimilliard

Well-Known Member
I thought that Oceaneering had been involved with most every small vehicle trackless ride in the industry since Hunny Hunt (wouldn't be surprised if they were collaborators with WDI on it, but info is hard to nail down with trackless tech from a quick search). To what extent I wouldn't venture a guess depending on the attraction, but I'm open to being wrong on that since info on that seems to be scarce because most of the trackless rides are in Disney, and WDI takes the public credit for everything. If someone feels like digging through Fun World there might be mentions in there for Mystic Manor, Rat, etc.

@Ravenclaw78 is exactly right, just referring to the ride system/vehicles (not visually).



Hmmm...you might be right on Brogent. I thought Dynamic was the main manufacturer from what I had gathered and that I was only familiar with Brogent's rotating design. The point still stands, I don't believe it's a uniquely WDI system, compared to something like Soarin or the omnimovers where those were entirely new and someone was brought in to help make it a reality. As for Seven Dwarves, nah, that was an iteration on the Arrow suspended system from the 80s just done a lot better with the track under instead of overhead. That it hadn't been done before isn't surprising, because I don't expect to see that again outside of blatant knockoffs since it isn't that special of a thing (the original suspended models aren't just maintenance nightmares, they're also not that popular in general) without a thematic reason for it like with Seven Dwarves.

Like I said, I'd concede trackless for the most part initially, but I believe it's much more "off the shelf" now at this point and WDI is only involved in the new "tricks" that aren't related to the core ride system. Again, since trackless seems harder to nail down, I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of the ride system landscape (not differentiating between wire-based like Tower or sensor/location-based).

I don't post anymore, but I felt like I had to correct a few misconceptions about ride manufacturers.

People throw around the name Dynamic Attractions a lot, but what exactly is "Dynamic Attractions?" Let's go back to the late 90's, a steel fabricator in British Colombia (Canada) named AGRA Coast Limited (who specialised in high end optical equipment like telescopes along with large ski jump structures among others) was asked by Disney to fix Test Track design and fabrication flaws. It worked and WDI appreciated them so much that they were given the contract of fabricating the steel erector sets for Soarin' Over California based on WDI's Mark Sumner (who is named on the patent for the ride system) design. From there, they've done work for Disney, such as supervising DL Space Mountain reconstruction, redone monorails and other work. In 2001, a british firm called AMEC purchased AGRA Coast Limited and renamed it AMEC Dynamic Structures.

AMEC Dynamic Structures created dark rides using the german KUKA robotic arms. Universal and Disney fought for the completed design from , with Universal winning out and originally wanted to use it for a Van Helsing ride at Islands of Adventure. After the movie with Hugh Jackman flopped and Universal got the Harry Potter rights, the ride system was used for Forbidden Journey. Since then, Universal's exclusivity has run out and in 2018, Warner Bros World in Abu Dhabi opened Batman's Knight Flight, a dark ride using the Kuka arms. Another company is now making Kuka arm dark rides: Premier Rides, with the first one opening soon hopefully at Sunac Land (ex Wanda Park) Guangzhou. That's in addition to the chinese made copies, the first one I saw was at Joyland in China, but I could not ride due to a strict 170 lbs weight limit.

So where does the current Dynamic Attractions come in? In 2007, AMEC Dynamic Structures was purchased by a competitor, Empire Industries. Empire is a fellow telescope builder and the companies businesses were merged, with an industry legend named Peter Schnabels coming in to lead to a dedicated amusement division, Dynamic Attractions. Peter Schnabels is a legend as he helped create the american company of Intamin (maker of Grizzly River Run, Indiana Jones et le Temple du Peril, California Screamin's, Pirates of the Caribbean and Small World in Paris, a Space Mountain, etc.), founded Premier Rides and other accomplishments. Later on, Peter Schnabels left to form a new company, CAVU, also based in Canada.

Next among the line of top Disney attraction suppliers, Sansei Technologies. Sansei-Yusoki as it was known then built the largest roller coasters in Japan in the 60's and 70's and helped build many attractions at Tokyo Disneyland. WDI used them to build the Disneyland, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Paris Buzz Lightyear as well as the two Little Mermaid omnimovers. They were also used to build versions of other rides in Asia, like Raging Spirits (Intamin was not involved there contrary to what you see online), Shanghai Disneyland Roaring Rapids is also from Sansei, not Intamin. They're used for some very unique ride systems and to help support their american Disney contracts, purchased S&S Power over 10 years ago. Sansei also purchased Vekoma, but Vekoma is still treated as a stand-alone company.

Oceaneering has been thrown around a bit here. What exactly did they do and how did they start in the amusement business? The original Jaws ride at Universal Studios Florida didn't work, with the shark robots not exactly running reliably. Oceaneering core business is underwater equipment for offshore platform, drilling and robots to service that equipment. To that end, they got Jaws to work a lot better and like with AGRA/Dynamic Structures, Universal Creative kept their name in mind and had them build the Spiderman ride system. Oceaneering then built their own version of that spinning tracked dark ride car, named the Revolution, which was sold to a few non Universal clients around the world. The Evolution trackless dark ride was first used by SeaWorld Florida for the Antarctica dark ride and was used by Disney for Tokyo Disneyland new Beauty and the Beast dark ride, but modified for 10 passengers for higher capacity. The EVO-6 tracked dark ride is a more affordable and smaller vehicle with the capacity to do 3 DOF, first used on the Six Flags Justice League rides.

What are DOF? When thinking of a motion simulator, each Degree of Freedom (DOF) is a movement that the ride vehicle can be made to do. The most advanced motion simulators, like Star Tours (Rediffusion Simulation Limited motion simulators) are capable of 6 DOF, while simpler ones like Soarin' can only do 2 or 4. The Disney Enhanced Motion Vehicle (EMV) is capable of 6 and with the longer travel of the cylinders, can do more than Oceaneering Spiderman or Evolution vehicles.

Brogent Technologies was mentioned here. Their i-Ride premiered in 2010 and it went back to some ideas that WDI had abandoned for Soarin'. Disney didn't want to have loading on multiple levels due to staffing requirements and came up with the large moving erector set as a replacement. Brogent uses it as a selling point, since on days with lower attendance, you can close one or two levels and run less vehicles, lowering running costs, maintenance and staffing. The i-Ride is capable of 6DOF, so you can have a very active and action oriented film. The m-Ride, first seen on Legoland's Master of Flight can do 4DOF, but has the interesting idea of spinning the car around when needed and at the start and end of the cycle.

Flight of Passage is not from Brogent, but from what I can piece together, is something WDI assembled together from multiple vendors. The way the ride work is also brillantly simple: the platform on which your seats is on is mounted on rails. The rails move back and forth only while the seats tilt left and right. Not too exciting, right? The fun begins when you realize the rails are on an assembly that can drop and raise. When the ride begins with that dramatic plunge, its a matter of the cars sliding down the rails while they drop down. Dynamic Attractions again came up with a variant for Non Disney clients, but I haven't seen one appear anywhere yet. Rise of the Resistance is another example where Disney assembled many vendors and acted as the orchestra leader to bring it all together.

Disney and Universal still like to think outside the box when it comes to vendors and fabricators. Like, did you know that Roush Industries (who make aftermarket car parts and runs one of the largest Nascar team) made the new Matterhorn Bobsleds cars? They were also involved with Ratatouille. Mystic Manor had a company called ROTO industries involved, something I saw at IAAPA one year when their booth had a photo of Mystic Manor as one of their previous work, something Disney frowns heavily on. Roush Industries Entertainment page.
 

maxairmike

Well-Known Member
Huh, thanks for that awesome post @Absimilliard! That clears up some of my spots where I wasn't sure/had some things confused. I hadn't realized Vekoma had been gobbled up by Sansei (missed that acquisition somehow), and I thought Oceaneering had been involved in trackless long before Empire (like I said, public info on that is frustratingly spotty). Do you happen to know who helped with the wire guided version for Tower, as I don't believe that was entirely an in-house concept? It's hard to keep up with some of the "smaller" players in ride systems, and even I fall into the trap of associating attractions a little too widely with the big boys.
 

Absimilliard

Well-Known Member
Huh, thanks for that awesome post @Absimilliard! That clears up some of my spots where I wasn't sure/had some things confused. I hadn't realized Vekoma had been gobbled up by Sansei (missed that acquisition somehow), and I thought Oceaneering had been involved in trackless long before Empire (like I said, public info on that is frustratingly spotty). Do you happen to know who helped with the wire guided version for Tower, as I don't believe that was entirely an in-house concept? It's hard to keep up with some of the "smaller" players in ride systems, and even I fall into the trap of associating attractions a little too widely with the big boys.

Good question, unfortunately, I am not aware of the exact suppliers for Tower of Terror beyond that Otis provided the lifts. Looking at the 90's, buried wire technology had been in use for years and I saw then in a factory a nice example of AGV (automated guide vehicle). Let's say I had to send parts or documents to someone else on the factory floor. I'd stop one of the AGV going around and program the station number of the receiver. The AGV would plot out an optimal route and using only right turns and straight section make its way toward the receiver. Since they rolled on the same paths as people, they were equipped with sensors that would stop them when they detected someone in front or that was too close.

For Tower of Terror, Disney went to one of the suppliers of AGV then and adapted their technology to work with the ride vehicles. A lot of the causes of breakdowns on that ride are the same things that happened to AGV systems in industrial settings.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Hmmm...you might be right on Brogent. I thought Dynamic was the main manufacturer from what I had gathered and that I was only familiar with Brogent's rotating design.
Brogent was not involved in Flight of Passage.

Universal Creative kept their name in mind and had them build the Spiderman ride system.
For Islands of Adventure, Universal initially tried to assemble the vehicles themselves with parts from various vendors but ran into problems getting things to work. They brought in Oceaneering to make them work and subsequently have just had them handle them.

Disney and Universal still like to think outside the box when it comes to vendors and fabricators. Like, did you know that Roush Industries (who make aftermarket car parts and runs one of the largest Nascar team) made the new Matterhorn Bobsleds cars? They were also involved with Ratatouille. Mystic Manor had a company called ROTO industries involved, something I saw at IAAPA one year when their booth had a photo of Mystic Manor as one of their previous work, something Disney frowns heavily on. Roush Industries Entertainment page.
Roush was also involved with the ride vehicles for Mystic Manor.

Disney will authorize advertisement but everything has to be very specific, approved by their lawyers and who you are definitely matters. I believe one of the Blog posts for Cosmic Rewind actually went so far as to name Vekoma.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
In the history of Disney, this will be one of those historic financial quarters. This the equivalent of an 1880’s cargo sailing ship in a gale force storm. Leadership is critical and Disney will not emerge unscathed. So here are some things to watch for when they report.

The first is Operating Income by Segment. Disney has four business segments that will be reported:

  • Media Networks. This is ABC and the Cable channels but mostly ESPN. ESPN pays a lot of money for sports like the College Football Playoffs, MLB, NBA and the NFL among others. Just these four sports cost over $5B annually. It would be hard for Disney to get money back but I am sure they are trying. The Q2 March 2020 financials said Disney had Operating Income of $2.4B in this segment. Watch Media Networks to see the impact of no sports and lower advertising. Will it be a loss or did this segment stay above water?
  • Parks and Recreation. The parks have been closed and the cruise ships docked. Where is the revenue now? The Q2 March 2020 financials said Disney had revenue of $5.5B with Operating Income of $639M. Did Disney shut down the costs fast enough? Watch for how big the Operating Income loss is in this segment.
  • Studio Entertainment. This is the movie business which had nothing in this quarter. In Q2 March 2020 they had revenue of $2.5B and an Operating Income of $466M. The same question here as for the parks, did they shut off cost fast enough? This will probably be another segment with a loss, but how big?
  • Direct to Consumer. This is Hulu, ESPN+ and Disney+. Revenue here should be higher than the $4B reported last quarter. The problem is they also reported an Operating Income loss of $812M. This segment was not projected to make money for a couple more years. There will probably be a loss in this segment as well despite higher revenue.
So the first thing we are looking for is did Disney generate any positive income from any of these segments or was it an across the board massacre? Even two segments positive is a good sign.

The second area to watch is did Disney generate enough money to even pay the interest on the debt? You want to see Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBIT) be high enough to comfortably cover the $300M in interest due each quarter. Disney had about $1.3B in EBIT last quarter based on $2.4B in Operating Income. Disney may not have made enough money to cover interest costs. We will see.

The third area to watch is the relation between current assets and current liabilities. Current assets are mostly cash and account receivables. Current liabilities are mostly accounts payable and the debt principle repayment. Disney had a 94% ratio, meaning they owed a bit more than they had. How much cash did they spend to keep going? Can Disney meet current obligations without borrowing more?

Disney will go through massive layoffs, savings and more borrowing to keep going. The loss of talent and resources will hurt the 5 year capital expenditure plan. To keep the magic alive, they will need to do fewer things with higher quality. The question is how many fewer things are we looking at?

Let’s see how bad this is on August 4.
Interesting info.
 

Absimilliard

Well-Known Member
Brogent was not involved in Flight of Passage.


For Islands of Adventure, Universal initially tried to assemble the vehicles themselves with parts from various vendors but ran into problems getting things to work. They brought in Oceaneering to make them work and subsequently have just had them handle them.


Roush was also involved with the ride vehicles for Mystic Manor.

Disney will authorize advertisement but everything has to be very specific, approved by their lawyers and who you are definitely matters. I believe one of the Blog posts for Cosmic Rewind actually went so far as to name Vekoma.

During Bob Chapek keynote speech to IAAPA GM and Owner Breakfast in 2018, he specifically mentioned Vekoma regarding Guardians and showed off footage of the ride vehicles at their plant.

Vekoma can now show off a lot of their Disney work and TRON as well as Seven Dwarves Mine Train are advertised on their IAAPA booths.

One company that got into trouble was Proslide for their reconstruction of Summit Plummet. At last year's IAAPA Expo Europe, they listed Disney's Blizzard Beach as one of their 2019-2020 projects... A similar board appeared in Orlando and Blizzard Beach was quickly removed at Disney's request, probably due to the social media storm here and elsewhere online.
 
Last edited:

donaldtoo

Well-Known Member
"Standard" 10,000 square foot home???

Yea, that one caught my attention, too.....
“Typical”....Is that total covered area...? Is it a one or two story home, and at what pl. hts....? Does that include under roof attic...? Typical rafters...? Does that include floor joists/trusses...? Is that only heated and cooled area...?!?!?! Sooooo many factors...Do tell... :cyclops:
 

brb1006

Well-Known Member
You‘re thinking like 2020 (or 2019) Disney. Disney Parks in the mid 2000s were a different story entirely. Let me paint the scene for you...
1) Disneyland Resort: Disneyland had been struggling for years since DCA. Despite additions, the park remained extremely under visited and under loved. Ride quality and maintenance had cratered in both parks. Tourism had slowed to a trickle. Disneyland Park remained a solid operation, but it was stagnate. Disney saw no other path than spending enormous sums of money to fix the resort. And the last time Disney had dolled out significant sums in Anaheim they had got DCA. There were even talks at the time that Disney was contemplating merging DCA into Disneyland:
“An initial idea was to combine Disneyland and California Adventure, creating a massive park that required one ticket. But the investment in infrastructure to transport visitors around that area was prohibitive, so they focused instead on creating a second Disneyland.”

Disneyland was in awful shape. Allowing another company to fix it would be tempting.
2) Walt Disney World: Like Disneyland, Walt Disney World was in trouble. In the late 90s Walt Disney World had reached unbelievable heights of profitability and occupancy. That all changed when a mixture of factors converged to keep Walt Disney World from more growth. A poorly built out park, an economic recession, and 9/11 destroyed Walt Disney World’s momentum. By the mid 2000s Fast Company Alum @AustinC reported that “Inside the company, Disney World became known as a “burning platform.”” The panic was real and palpable within the company.
3) Disneyland Paris: In a struggle echoing Disneyland in Anaheim, Disneyland Paris hobbled along with a lackluster 2nd gate and failing maintenance.
4) Hong Kong Disneyland: The park‘s struggle is well known. It flopped.

So of the ventures Disney was owner of or owned a stake in most were either in desperate need of cash infusions or on a path to stagnation. Other parks and resorts businesses were in better shape. Disney Cruise Line and Disney Vacation Club were rapidly growing divisions that held promise. Beyond that the parks were either dead or dying.

Both analysts and Disney itself wondered if Theme Parks as an industry would survive. WSJ wrote in 2007:
“When Walt Disney created Disneyland in 1955, and the company started the Disney World resort in Orlando, Fla., in 1971 with the first Magic Kingdom park, the parks were powerful brand builders. But it is unclear whether that is still the case in the 21st century, when kids are more interested in the Internet and Disney has more tools to play with, such as the relatively investment-light but popular Disney Channel.”

These anxieties about the future of theme parks also come out in @AustinC ‘s reporting. Fast Company reported:
In the mid-2000s, however, Disney executives had reason to worry about the future of the business. Disney World, Parks’ crown jewel, seemed to be losing its luster. According to multiple sources, certain key metrics, including guests’ “intent to return,” were dropping; around half of first-time attendees signaled they likely would not come back because of long lines, high ticket costs, and other park pain points. Simultaneously, the stunningly fast adoption of social media and smartphones threatened the relevance of the parks. If Disney wanted these more tech-oriented generations to love it as much as their parents, who had grown up with fewer entertainment alternatives, had, it would have to embrace change now.”
“Inside the company, Disney World became known as a “burning platform.” As the former executive explains, “If we miss out on that next generation of guests, suddenly our burning platform is fully on fire—panic mode.””


This was more than just some irritation with investments. This was foundational. Would theme parks survive in an era of digital consumption? Disney also wrestled with the question of whether making big theme park investments was worth it. You can see these questions reflected in the investments Disney made or considered making. WSJ wrote in 2007:
“Disney's theme-park operation has been hatching plans to expand its reach by building smaller attractions and resorts around the world, rather than just more big parks. As well as stand-alone hotels in cities and beach resorts, that plan is expected to include Disney-branded retail and dining districts, and smaller, more specialized parks that could focus on popular themes such as pirates or princesses.”

LA Times also shared comments from then Disney P&R Chair Jay Rasulo. He hinted at the idea of smaller less significant investments:
“Beyond that, Rasulo’s talk of “niche parks” has sparked curiosity among Disney watchers. Those parks would be higher priced and offer a more intimate experience, Rasulo said during the investors speech.”

Not only Disney viewed theme parks as stagnating. Even Disney’s fan favorite partner Oriental Land Company began exploring new side ventures. OLC invested in several other properties and even worked with imagineering to dream up a new entertainment complex that would not be related to Tokyo Disney Resort. The sentiment in the room was theme parks were an obsolete business.

This is reflected in where Disney was putting its money at the time. Theme park investments were seen as increasingly unattractive to Disney. Rasulo wanted diversification. While we remember the $1.1 Billion investment in DCA, we are slow to remember that it represented only a fraction of total P&R investments in the late 2000s. Disney announced and built two cruise ships to the tune of $900 million each. Aulani was built for another gargantuan sum of $800 million. Disney built out resorts like Grand Californian DVC, DAKL DVC, and BLT for $100s of million. They also worked aggressively to build out Golden Oak, a non theme park project. So at the same time Disney was investing in California Adventure, they invested far more in non theme park projects. Like 3 times+ more. We haven’t even talked about the 1 billion+ (and @marni1971 would say more) that was poured into MyMagic.

Iger was not a fan of theme parks and his investments prove it. As he pursued shortsighted real estate deals selling off Orlando property, his parks languished. Walt Disney World was utterly neglected in the first decade of Iger’s tenure. It was only after Cars Land opened that it dawned on Iger that theme parks were a good business. It was not until 2015 that Disney began taking serious steps to invest in its product.

So did Iger consider selling the parks? I’d absolutely believe so. He was too dumb to see the longterm potential. His early leadership of Parks and Resorts is noteworthy for its mediocrity and poor foresight. His failure to invest in meaningful improvements betrays his ineptness. Though perhaps he really loves theme parks. As Iger once said:
“I go there [Disneyland] and I marvel at how many people are there having the time of their lives. You just get the sense that in a world that can at times feel dark and as sinister as it is, these are people that have escaped all of that. They have spent time and good money, I will say, to provide themselves and their friends, their family, their loved ones, an experience that not only is going to make them feel good, but that they’re going to remember forever.”


Sources:
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
You say that last sentence as though that is a negative about Disney. But that's what many people love about Disney.

Thrill rides are a dime a dozen. You can find them within minutes of pretty much anywhere in the United States. There is park after park after park full of them. Doing a well-done, creative, fun, engaging ride that is NOT a thrill ride? That takes some talent.

If I want thrills, I can do it much cheaper and closer by going to King's Island. That is not Disney's niche, nor should it be. And that is not why people flock to Disney parks.

I’d argue that I even find the family rides Disney does as thrilling. The immersion, the stories, the details, the tech. It’s intellectually thrilling, it’s stimulating, and it amazes.

I love a good thrill ride, and I can ride many over and over. But I don’t long to experience their “world” like I do a Disney ride.

I have dreams about the “worlds” Disney build in a ride, I don’t have dreams about coasters.

Granted when they marry the two such as Indiana Jones, Splash, ToT, Spiderman, and Hogwarts... chefs kiss.
 
Top Bottom