SirLink
Well-Known Member
Well I must say that is one way not to build an E-ticket guess we can expect that 3d show they designed for DLP to be copied the world over. Heh
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Spirited Seventh Heaven ...
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
Well I must say that is one way not to build an E-ticket guess we can expect that 3d show they designed for DLP to be copied the world over. Heh
Quinnmac000
Well-Known Member
So TMNT exceeded expectations last night and expected to surpass Guardians of the Galaxy this weekend. I didn't see that coming at all. I expected it to be a box office bomb.
Last edited:
wogwog
Well-Known Member
I think falling down drunk had to be the condition of the fine Disney folks who thought up all the nextgen nonsense. "Hey, another round here! Guys, look at what I just thought of, here read my napkin."
Cosmic Commando
Well-Known Member
I used the measure tool on Wikimapia to get rough estimates... here's what I got:
Toontown - 3.2 acres
Circle D Ranch - 3.7 acres
Big Thunder Ranch - 3.0 acres
Fantasyland Theater - 2.4 acres
So IF you can include all of those things, you'll get over twelve acres. It's not crazy to build a new Ranch offsite somewhere... the MK horses commute from Ft. Wilderness, after all. There is still some of the Fujishige property that hasn't been turned into the Toy Story parking lot. There is an access road to the backside of Fantasyland between the Theater and the Ranch, but part of it is already a tunnel (according to Wikimapia), so they could just make more tunnel. Remember, you can dig down in Anaheim without swimming.
The Soarin' show building is already sunk down considerably.As to the fit? It's fine, I guess. You'll still have that walkway under the train tracks to transition, so that'll really help. Maybe the entrance (or at least one of the entrances) could be over by Big Thunder Ranch... it's a pretty blank area and far away from anything else in the park. I don't believe you can even really see the trains on BTMRR from that side, so you'd just have the mountain to transition from. A lot of my opinion of this plan will depend on what they do with Roger. Spirit already hinted that it's not moving to DCA, but there's NO good reason it shouldn't. It would be a perfect fit in Hollywoodland. I love the Muppets, but that show building is about the right size and you would still have the space leftover for the Monstropolis plans. DCA could use another dark ride, anyway.
Last edited:
Gomer
Well-Known Member
On a Disney board especially we should always remember, never underestimate the power of nostalgia. TMNT was insanely popular 20 years ago. And those kids are now your primary ticket buying demographic. Curiosity and nostalgia will get it a good opening weekend. It may fade quickly with the bad reviews its getting, but I'm not surprised by the initial numbers.
Cosmic Commando
Well-Known Member
It might pass Guardians' total for this weekend, but it won't come close to Guardians' actual opening weekend numbers.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3887&p=.htm
Quinnmac000
Well-Known Member
The thing is a good majority of people didn't even expect it to do that.
Cosmic Commando
Well-Known Member
I only posted it because I thought the post I was responding to made it sound like TMNT would have a $100M opening weekend.
scout68
Well-Known Member
Gomer
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure about that. Most of the reports I read earlier this week had them neck and neck at around 40m+. They gave GotG a chance to keep the top spot, but it was close. The trades are now saying the estimates underestimated the lure TMNT would have on 25-35 year olds. This is why you can't always trust studio estimates. They are based largely on past movies that may or may not have all factors in common with the current one. Hence how far off they were with GotG the previous weekend.
Soarin' Over Pgh
Well-Known Member
You'll love that little park. Just remember, it's little...compared to MK. But, there's more to see. It's compact, but the details are amazing. My advice is to slow down and stop frequently. Look all around you, look up, look down. Enjoy!! I'm hoping to get back out there next year myself.
How much appeal does Roger Rabbit really have? Do kids know who he is? Do they see his cartoons? Honest question, because I don't have kids. And I wasn't allowed to see the RR movie until I was older.
I remember ToonTown from years past and I can't recall spending more than a few minutes in that part of the park. I never cared for the weird angled houses, the cartoony colors of the whole land (I know, that's the point, but I didn't like it) and I wasn't crazy about the Car Spin ride much either.
Good riddance.
While I agree Tomorrowland needs a serious facelift, Disney probably fears backlash from the local fan base over changing an integral part of Walts park and ideas from Tomorrowland to Star Wars land. It's the only thing I can think of!
That's such a true statement on many levels. Also, trying to figure out, or explain, MM+ to someone who has no idea will send you straight to the bottle. Trust me, I've tried. Didn't end well.
danv3
Well-Known Member
THIS. IMO, it will not be open much before the 50th anniversary, and will be marketed as a 50th anniversary addition.
Last edited:
danv3
Well-Known Member
Spirited Friday Afternoon Musings:
So, UNI is touting the HE ridership while WDW is telling people they can't even stand in line for attractions or to purchase crappy QS food. Yes, I do get why the UNI fanbois are crowing.
A quiet Friday in the dog days of summer (or as we Floridians call it -- Back to School and Football Pre-Season) and some folks want to have another Iger vs. Eisner discussion. Everyone knows my feelings on this, but since MDE has been sorta in my orbit this week, I feel like spreading some facts.
If you are a fan of the WDW of today ... of anything from DVC to DAK Lodge ... from BB to Stitch ... from DCL to ESPN ... from EE (with or without Disco Yeti) to Napa Rose ... from Soarin over California to the California Grill (either of them) ... from DLP to TDS ... from Port Orleans to Fantasmic in NoS ... well, you are a fan of Michael Eisner's or you should be.
Hell, he actually planned for monorail expansion multiple times!
The facts speak for themselves. Michael (and Frank and Roy and MANY talented folks under them) made the Disney that you love, the one that you might even have an unhealthy attachment to.
Bob Iger has not cleaned up most of the messes that Michael admittedly left behind. Indeed, he has bought into the worst of Michael's tenure and made it look pretty by becoming a Wall Street centerfold (yeah, that reference is going to be lost on fanbois in the iPhone era!)
It is very easy to purchase the talents and creations of others versus actually making things, creating art yourself. Pixar, I'll almost give a pass on since they have always been an extension of Disney and they didn't have the options some people think they did. But Marvel and Lucasfilm were simply Bob taking billions of dollars and saying ''We can't create, so we'll acquire.''
There's no arguing that some major flaws in P&R also started showing up under Eisner, certainly the destruction of EPCOT began with Test Track's debut (of course, most people here love that). And the decision to not invest in keeping PI and its clubs/venues fresh began under Michael. Shuttering RC and DI ... check.
But anyone looking at the Big Picture would be foolish to think that Iger has been some prince riding to the rescue of a kingdom in trouble.
And I do realize how endless and lame this whole discussion can become.
But the numbers that @ParentsOf4 has graciously (and tirelessly!
The worst of MDE at WDW came after 9/11, but it was also the best. He allowed the resort to remain open daily and run. ... And as soon as the travel turnaround began, he had new product in the pipeline (of varying quality, but not the point).
When it comes to investing in the parks, Iger would rather buy billions of dollars of stock back.
There is NO faith in Disney's product (this isn't simply P&R, look at how unprepared they were for Frozen's success to tell you what they thought of that little film).
He is beyond a tease with fanbois over putting Star Wars (or anything -- see the 6 1/2 years Pandora is taking!) into the parks. There is no good reason why construction on various projects didn't start long, long ago.
NGE is the ultimate in Iger cynicism: it exists to extract more $$$ from existing guests/fans/chronics/addicts and first-timers because that is easier and less risky (short term) than what Comcast is doing with its parks.
Bob is ... a typical manager in 21st century Big Business ... that may be fine for Wall Street, but for a MAGIC factory like TWDC it is terrible. And most of that damage is long term and the kind that he'll be long gone when it has to be dealt with.
And if he gets his way and Rasulo or Staggs becomes the next head of the company, forget about anything getting much better. You'll look back at years like 1995 or1999 or even 2005 like they were a Golden Age.
Quoted because everyone should read this post. Repeatedly.
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
Many point to the Frank Wells' death in 1994 as the beginning of the 'bad' Michael Eisner years. From a show perspective at the theme parks, there is some merit to this.But the numbers that @ParentsOf4 has graciously (and tirelessly!
Insiders recall a time when (heaven forbid) they were being required to justify budgets. It's also the time when places like Main Street USA were transformed from experiences in and of themselves into shopping malls.
Even during these years, Eisner continued to invest in Disney's Parks & Resorts (P&R) segment.
Budgets tend to be evaluated from an expense vs. revenue perspective. How much is being spent vs. how much is being brought in? Expenses tend to be divided into operating expense (the cost of day-to-day operations) and capital expense (improvements). Disney often refers to capex as "investing activities".
Investing activities include theme park improvements that are easily recognizable such as Cars Land, New Fantasyland, and Pandora.
It also includes required upgrades to P&R's tremendous physical assets, what Disney CFO Jay Rasulo refers to as "FF&E and maintenance capital" (FF&E = "Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment"). Rasulo said that this "FF&E and maintenance capital" budget back in 2006 was "about $1 billion [...] being an ongoing level without special projects added to it".
In 2011, Rasulo said that the capex budget was even higher (without specifying a number) due additional projects needing more "maintenance capital". With inflation, it seems the current capex budget "without special projects" is at least $1.5 billion. In other words, if corporate Disney did not add to any of its theme parks, it still would spend about $1.5 billion annually just to keep its facilities current.
This number is important to remember when looking at P&R's investing activities in order to recognize exactly how much is being spent to improve the theme parks (at least the kinds of improvements that can be advertised as such to potential buyers).
In 2013, Disney's Domestic P&R investing activities were $1.14 billion, while its International activities were $970 million. Remove the "FF&E and maintenance capital" expenditures and the money committed to Shanghai Disneyland, and it's apparent that very little is left for improvements at Disney's numerous other existing theme parks throughout the rest of the world.
All of this was just to give you an idea of how Disney can spend $2.2 billion annually in P&R capex and yet we see very little added at WDW.
Now we have to put this in historical perspective.
In 2013, Disney's P&R segment took in $14.1 billion. That $2.2 billion in capex represents 15.0% of P&R revenue. 15.0% sounds like a lot but, hopefully as I've shown above, Disney can spend 15% and yet fans see little added to WDW.
From 1994 to 2005 (supposedly Eisner's 'bad' years), Disney averaged 24.5% P&R investing, including the very lean years of 2002 and 2003, when the vacation industry collapsed.
Last year, Comcast spent 26% on its Theme Parks investments.
During his 8 full years as Disney CEO, Bob Iger has averaged just 14.1%. His best year of investment was 23.1% in 2011 (think Cars Land and cruise ships), which is below Eisner's average during his 'bad' years.
Let's put Eisner's 24.5% average into terms we can understand today. The difference between 24.5% and Iger's 15.0% in 2013 is $1.3 billion annually. Just imagine what could be built with an extra $1.3 billion invested every year.
When it comes to Disney's Parks & Resorts, anyone who thinks Iger is an improvement over Eisner even in Eisner's worst years should pay closer attention to the numbers.
Last edited:
Nemo14
Well-Known Member
Many point to the Frank Wells' death in 1994 as the beginning of the 'bad' Michael Eisner years. From a show perspective at the theme parks, there is some merit to this.
Insiders recall a time when (heaven forbid) they were being required to justify budgets. It's also the time when places like Main Street USA were transformed from experiences in and of themselves into shopping malls.
Even during these years, Eisner continued to invest in Disney's Parks & Resorts (P&R) segment.
Budgets tend to be evaluated from an expense vs. revenue perspective. How much is being spent vs. how much is being brought in? Expenses tend to be divided into operating expense (the cost of day-to-day operations) and capital expense (improvements). Disney often refers to capex as "investing activities".
Investing activities include theme park improvements that are easily recognizable such as Cars Land, New Fantasyland, and Pandora.
It also includes required upgrades to P&R's tremendous physical assets, what CFO Jay Rasulo refers to as "FF&E and maintenance capital". (FF&E = "Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment") Rasulo said that this "FF&E and maintenance capital" budget back in 2006 was "about $1 billion [...] being an ongoing level without special projects added to it".
In 2011, Rasulo said that the capex budget was even higher (without specifying a number) due additional projects needing more "maintenance capital". With inflation, it seems the current capex budget "without special projects" is at least $1.5 billion. In other words, if corporate Disney did not add to any of its theme parks, it still would spend about $1.5 billion annually just to keep its facilities current.
This number is important to remember when looking at P&R's investing activities in order to recognize exactly how much is being spent to improve the theme parks (at least the kinds of improvements that can be advertised as such to potential buyers).
In 2013, Disney's Domestic P&R investing activities were $1.14 billion, while its International activities were $970 million. Remove the "FF&E and maintenance capital" expenditures and the money committed to Shanghai Disneyland, and it's apparent that very little is left for improvements at Disney's numerous other theme parks throughout the rest of the world.
All of this was just to give you an idea of how Disney can spend $2.2 billion annually in P&R capex and yet we see very little added at WDW.
Now we have to put this in historical perspective.
In 2013, Disney's P&R segment took in $14.1 billion. That $2.2 billion is capex represents 15.0%. 15.0% sounds like a lot but, hopefully as I've shown above, Disney can spend 15% and yet fans see practically nothing at WDW.
From 1994 to 2005 (supposedly Eisner's 'bad' years), Disney averaged 24.5% P&R investing, including the very lean years of 2002 and 2003 when the vacation industry collapsed.
Last year, Comcast spent 26% on its Theme Parks investments.
During his 8 full years as Disney CEO, Bob Iger has averaged just 14.1%. His best year of investment was 23.1% in 2011 (think DCA and cruise ships), which is below Eisner's average during his 'bad' years.
Let's put Eisner's 24.5% average into terms we can understand today. The difference between 24.5% and Iger's 15.0% in 2013 is $1.3 billion annually. Just imagine what could be built with an extra $1.3 billion invested every year.
When it comes to Disney's Parks & Resorts, anyone who thinks Iger is an improvement over Eisner even in Eisner's worst years should pay closer attention to the numbers.
This post should be required reading for any thread here. Thanks for explaining the numbers so well! (I didn't even have to follow @PhotoDave219 's advice to understand it all)
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
The first column is the wait time with Fastpass. The next columns show what the wait the wait time would be if Fastpass was eliminated. The reason for different columns is because the numbers vary depending on if you assume that Fastpass makes up 70, 65, 60, 55 or 50% of the first column. The formula is pretty simple
("Standby with Fastpass"*(1-"Fastpass Usage %"))+("Desired Fastpass Wait" * " Fastpass Usage %")
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
No, those 70% of people don't go away, they just wait longer. As I said in the original post it takes some leaps, most notably that someone that's willing to wait 5 minutes for an attraction is willing to wait longer. That's definitely not always the case. Conversely, you also don't know how many people that aren't willing to wait in the inflated standby line are now willing to wait in the deflated standby line.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Just so that I'm not losing my mind... this is more or less a re-post, right? It's great information and deserves to be reposted - I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something new that I was missing.Many point to the Frank Wells' death in 1994 as the beginning of the 'bad' Michael Eisner years. From a show perspective at the theme parks, there is some merit to this.
Insiders recall a time when (heaven forbid) they were being required to justify budgets. It's also the time when places like Main Street USA were transformed from experiences in and of themselves into shopping malls.
Even during these years, Eisner continued to invest in Disney's Parks & Resorts (P&R) segment.
Budgets tend to be evaluated from an expense vs. revenue perspective. How much is being spent vs. how much is being brought in? Expenses tend to be divided into operating expense (the cost of day-to-day operations) and capital expense (improvements). Disney often refers to capex as "investing activities".
Investing activities include theme park improvements that are easily recognizable such as Cars Land, New Fantasyland, and Pandora.
It also includes required upgrades to P&R's tremendous physical assets, what Disney CFO Jay Rasulo refers to as "FF&E and maintenance capital" (FF&E = "Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment"). Rasulo said that this "FF&E and maintenance capital" budget back in 2006 was "about $1 billion [...] being an ongoing level without special projects added to it".
In 2011, Rasulo said that the capex budget was even higher (without specifying a number) due additional projects needing more "maintenance capital". With inflation, it seems the current capex budget "without special projects" is at least $1.5 billion. In other words, if corporate Disney did not add to any of its theme parks, it still would spend about $1.5 billion annually just to keep its facilities current.
This number is important to remember when looking at P&R's investing activities in order to recognize exactly how much is being spent to improve the theme parks (at least the kinds of improvements that can be advertised as such to potential buyers).
In 2013, Disney's Domestic P&R investing activities were $1.14 billion, while its International activities were $970 million. Remove the "FF&E and maintenance capital" expenditures and the money committed to Shanghai Disneyland, and it's apparent that very little is left for improvements at Disney's numerous other existing theme parks throughout the rest of the world.
All of this was just to give you an idea of how Disney can spend $2.2 billion annually in P&R capex and yet we see very little added at WDW.
Now we have to put this in historical perspective.
In 2013, Disney's P&R segment took in $14.1 billion. That $2.2 billion in capex represents 15.0% of P&R revenue. 15.0% sounds like a lot but, hopefully as I've shown above, Disney can spend 15% and yet fans see little added to WDW.
From 1994 to 2005 (supposedly Eisner's 'bad' years), Disney averaged 24.5% P&R investing, including the very lean years of 2002 and 2003, when the vacation industry collapsed.
Last year, Comcast spent 26% on its Theme Parks investments.
During his 8 full years as Disney CEO, Bob Iger has averaged just 14.1%. His best year of investment was 23.1% in 2011 (think DCA and cruise ships), which is below Eisner's average during his 'bad' years.
Let's put Eisner's 24.5% average into terms we can understand today. The difference between 24.5% and Iger's 15.0% in 2013 is $1.3 billion annually. Just imagine what could be built with an extra $1.3 billion invested every year.
When it comes to Disney's Parks & Resorts, anyone who thinks Iger is an improvement over Eisner even in Eisner's worst years should pay closer attention to the numbers.
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
My most recent post focuses on Eisner's 'bad' years to show that even 'bad' Eisner was kinder to Disney's Parks & Resorts than Iger is today.
Although he initially was uncomfortable with Parks & Resorts, Eisner learned to embrace the segment.
Even after 8 years, Iger still largely ignores Parks & Resorts.
Hey, let's face it, hanging out with the unwashed masses at the theme parks is nowhere near as sexy as hanging out with Hollywood's elite at the latest $1000/plate fundraiser.
stevehousse
Well-Known Member
I'd b shocked if it did beat out GOG. At my theater our 2 evening shows for GOG were still sell outs, TMNT was only half full. Into the Storm even had more people in it than TMNT...