The Spirited Seventh Heaven ...

71jason

Well-Known Member
Her name is vaguely familiar.

But moving from the Olive Garden and Red Lobster to WDW sounds like an even trade!

At least it can be seen as a step up--from the #2 company in town to the 800-pound gorilla #1. Whereas Garcia always acted like he'd been sent to his room without dinner from the state political beat (which he covered very, very well, and clearly has a passion for).

But I'm with @PhotoDave219, I bet the new reporter never set foot in WDW outside Food & Wine.
 

71jason

Well-Known Member
One final note for the night, but the Villains event at TPFKaTD-MGMS is NOT the more grown up Halloween hard ticket event that was pitched numerous times since the 90s.

That event was far more than foamhead meet-and-greets.

A shame. I wouldn't hesitate to drop $70 on that.
 

fosse76

Well-Known Member
That I don't know. I have never ridden it. I wanted to years ago, but either rain or closures prevented that. And then about seven years ago, I just gave up riding wooden coasters. I don't have back or neck issues, but I easily wind up hurting both. I had neck pain last week from sleeping on my pillow the wrong way! Must be getting old or something ...

For Ghost Rider it doesn't matter how old you are, you get off the ride with some type of injury! Be glad you didn't ride it!

Yep. Single Rider lines are MAGICal. One day Splash Mountain was at 110 minutes. We simply walked on ...repeatedly if I recall correctly. I don't get why WDW doesn't have them. There was supposed to be one for Soarin when it opened, but they never wound up using it. I think the whole concept is too confusing for WDW's ops folks.
I think what makes the single rider lines at DLR work is the fact that are a non-secret secret. They aren't too obvious, so they aren't generally overcrowded. And they have quite a few: Disneyland Park has 3 and DCA has 5. It makes the parks much for manageable. However, I just don't think the one for Soarin' is worthwhile. There can be three people in front of you, and it could take 20 minutes. I attribute this to the length of the row, PLUS the fact that they have a lot of time to fill the rows completey by mixing and matching. If the CMs didn't have as much time, then single-rider would be better for that, I think. The few times I did single rider, I only beat the standby wait time by maybe 5 minutes.

I still think they should add single rider to Space Mountain. I would say 1/3 of the ride's capacity is not utilized because the CMs just don't load the ride efficiently.

Really. Phenomenal food, wine and service. And that has always been the case. Carthay, which I didn't do this time but wound up dining at three times on my last visit, is good but not in Napa's class.
Maybe it's the difference between lunch and dinner. I went for lunch. But I'm also a very picky eater, so perhaps the more adventurous meals (in my eyes) stand well-above the basics.

I have never had a meal there that was less than "I wish I was at WDW, so then I could get away with licking the plate'' good!
I can say that just about anywhere I dine. I just don't understand the "love" for WDW dining. I don't think it's anything special.

Many CMs haven't been to WDW and they take pride in where they work and sorta wonder what the fuss is over their expansive sibling in the swamps.
And I'm sure if they went, they'd still feel that way! LOL.

There is just something more, dare I say, "magical" about DLR than WDW. I've told many people that i my view, while both resorts are very corporate, that the feel between the two are different. DLR feels like a mom and pop operation, where the people work there very much care that they are there, and the customers are loyal, and the atmosphere is quaint and appropriate. WDW, on the other hand, is this big corporate beheamoth that tries to replicate what is in Anaheim, but without any of the charm. Money is more important, and everything looks manufactured as opposed to genuine.
 

dupac

Well-Known Member
FWIW, those families still largely exist, it's just that the Great Recession taught them to be more discriminating with that $50-$100. They're demanding fresher ingredients and higher quality meals, something Darren is not capable of delivering with their current size and structure.

I know that my parents choose local options now over large chains as well. I can't remember the last time I was with them and we ate at a chain. I think we ate Carino's a year or more ago, and only because there is a sad dearth of moderately priced Italian restaurants near their house.
 

EPCOTCenterLover

Well-Known Member
"There is just something more, dare I say, "magical" about DLR than WDW. I've told many people that i my view, while both resorts are very corporate, that the feel between the two are different. DLR feels like a mom and pop operation, where the people work there very much care that they are there, and the customers are loyal, and the atmosphere is quaint and appropriate. WDW, on the other hand, is this big corporate beheamoth that tries to replicate what is in Anaheim, but without any of the charm. Money is more important, and everything looks manufactured as opposed to genuine."

Charm and warmth is something that former Imagineer Tony Baxter is great at creating. You only need to go to Disneyland Paris for the best examples. Wish he was in charge of adding that to WDW.
 

tribbleorlfl

Well-Known Member
I think I first started visiting here to catch up on the breaking news about Horizons. It was suddenly closed, then rumors that the press was riding it, then it was closed again, and finally the news they were tearing it down. I still don't know if there has been any definitive word on why it closed. Rumors of sinkholes, the building starting to become unstable, and selling the ride system to a park in Mexico were the norm of the day. There was also the more mundane, it was cheaper to tear it down than to re-purpose such a specialized building. Anyone have the definitive reason or do we have to wait till the Freedom Of Information Act to have the documents declassied?:)

I posted about this in a previous thread when someone mentioned the sinkhole rumor was long debunked. I asked "debunked by whom?" because I know differently from my father. He was the 3rd shift maintenance foreman on Horizons in the mid 90's, right before the first extended closure. He confirmed to me there was indeed foundational and structural cracking from a probable sinkhole, and that the plan during the closure was to mitigate the damage and update the ride. Obviously they decided not to proceed with that original plan, and because he moved on to other maintenance departments and never returned, I don't have any solid information on its final closing and demolition.

His impression on why Horizons was replaced was its dwindling ridership and popularity coupled with its immense operating and maintenance budget (at the time, it was the only attraction at Epcot that had a dedicated Maintenance team) made repairing the damage and updating the attraction a poor financial decision.

Simply put, no a sinkhole wasn't the sole (or even major) reason Horizons was closed, but it was a contributing factor.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
I posted about this in a previous thread when someone mentioned the sinkhole rumor was long debunked. I asked "debunked by whom?" because I know differently from my father. He was the 3rd shift maintenance foreman on Horizons in the mid 90's, right before the first extended closure. He confirmed to me there was indeed foundational and structural cracking from a probable sinkhole, and that the plan during the closure was to mitigate the damage and update the ride. Obviously they decided not to proceed with that original plan, and because he moved on to other maintenance departments and never returned, I don't have any solid information on its final closing and demolition.

His impression on why Horizons was replaced was its dwindling ridership and popularity coupled with its immense operating and maintenance budget (at the time, it was the only attraction at Epcot that had a dedicated Maintenance team) made repairing the damage and updating the attraction a poor financial decision.

Simply put, no a sinkhole wasn't the sole (or even major) reason Horizons was closed, but it was a contributing factor.
So where's the sink hole now?
 

Fe Maiden

Well-Known Member
Aw pshaw, professionals don't require AC. Play it like the olde timey teams in the good ol' days. Celtics/Lakers 1984. You may recall Ye Olde Boston Garden never had air conditioning. Bruins playoffs in the fog due to melting ice and this blurb from the 1984 NBA finals

Meanwhile, the 37-year-old Abdul-Jabbar showed his age in the sweltering heat. How hot was it in the Garden? "I suggest," Kareem said, "that you go to a local steam bath, do 100 pushups with all your clothes on, then try to run back and forth for 48 minutes. The game was in slow motion. It was like we were running in mud."

This brings back some great memories, not really in '84, I'm a Sixers fan, but you know what I mean! In fact I was telling my oldest son about the old Boston Garden while we were watching those fans wilt last night. Unless I'm bad at geography don't San Antonian's live in Texas. Sheesh.

And if anyone thinks there was only one winner and one loser last night you would be incorrect:

http://www.crossingbroad.com/2014/0...-for-their-tweets-about-lebrons-cramping.html
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
So where's the sink hole now?

M:S isn't the exact same footprint, though, so I would think it's conceivable that if a sinkhole were in the area that they build M:S in such a way to account for it. I'm not saying I believe that, but if they tore down Horizons even partially for that reason, they obviously would take it into account with a new build.
 

truecoat

Well-Known Member
Spirited NBA Finals Musings:
Yes, Disney fans, it is true. The only park opening a major $200 million attraction this year is the Disney Studios Paris. REALLY!

But travel down the road and you can see a spectacular $200+ million attraction.

I have friends that work near this latest campus shooting. Messed up that the country refuses to discuss it.

We don't need to discuss it. It's exactly what those shooters want, to go out in a blaze of glory. The next unstable individual feeds off that and goes out in a blaze of....well he ruins many lives.

Yes, my reaction to people posting star wars spoilers is causing @The Mom some headaches on here.

We have a spoiler tag for a reason; use it people.

(Yes, I'm making a list of people who post spoilers indiscriminetly)

Making a list? I wish you had better things to do.
 

Omnispace

Well-Known Member
I posted about this in a previous thread when someone mentioned the sinkhole rumor was long debunked. I asked "debunked by whom?" because I know differently from my father. He was the 3rd shift maintenance foreman on Horizons in the mid 90's, right before the first extended closure. He confirmed to me there was indeed foundational and structural cracking from a probable sinkhole, and that the plan during the closure was to mitigate the damage and update the ride. Obviously they decided not to proceed with that original plan, and because he moved on to other maintenance departments and never returned, I don't have any solid information on its final closing and demolition.

His impression on why Horizons was replaced was its dwindling ridership and popularity coupled with its immense operating and maintenance budget (at the time, it was the only attraction at Epcot that had a dedicated Maintenance team) made repairing the damage and updating the attraction a poor financial decision.

Simply put, no a sinkhole wasn't the sole (or even major) reason Horizons was closed, but it was a contributing factor.

Thanks! That's consistent with the story I heard way back, that when they evaluated the building, things were worse than anticipated -- which in the building and construction world equates to being too complicated and expensive to justify. Because the ride track was fairly integral to the building structure, I heard that it was becoming affected as well.

Edit: It's too bad the building is still not around though I assume by now we would be arguing over the possibility of Horizons being turned into a Monsters Door Coaster....
 

Mike S

Well-Known Member
Looks like Norwegian tourism folks are not as annoyed about "Frozen" being associated with their country as Disney fans are.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/behind-norways-frozen-windfall-from-disney/
There's no problem associating the film with Norway for tourism. The environments were inspired by the country after all. The problem comes when you consider replacing a ride that already fits the theme of World Showcase with something that doesn't fit at all. Frozen doesn't take place in Norway nor does it show any part of their history or culture. Put it in Fantasyland where it belongs. I'm getting tired of people bringing this up as an excuse for Frozen fitting in Norway.
 
Last edited:

flynnibus

Premium Member
The Akershus Fortress is not the same level as Maelstrom. Let's be real

Irrelevant... what the article is citing as embracing (increase interest in the country) is not what is being proposed in EPCOT --adding commercial characters and changing the premise of something built to celebrate culture and history.

Might as well say "Norway is happy about increase birth rates - so obviously they don't mind Frozen coming" - it's just as relevant... (aka.. none)
 

Soarin' Over Pgh

Well-Known Member
Globally, Disney spends a ton of cash on maintenance, with the largest amount going to WDW.

The question is whether Disney spends enough.

Recalling what CFO Jay Rasulo said about investments in 2011:

“Five years ago or so we used to be pretty demonstrative about $1 billion number being an ongoing level without special projects added to it.

"You have to remember though that in those five years in the capital projects that we have put in the ground, which each have their own growth strategy, each is filling in different parts of the portfolio, when they are back on board they all need ongoing FF&E and maintenance capital to keep them going.​

"So I would say that that $1 billion number is low.”​

With baseline capex at $1B back in 2006 along with inflation and the additional projects brought online since 2006, today’s Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E) may very well be over $2B. Most of today's "investments" consist of basic maintenance, not "special projects". Whether $2B is enough for maintenance depends on what you think about quality at the parks.

Looking more closely at 2013, total company investments (which includes FF&E) were $2.8B. With FF&E approaching $2B, total annual revenue at $45B, and P&R revenue at $14B, it's apparent that the budget for all "special projects" (e.g. Pandora) being shared across all company segments is comparatively small. In 2013, Disney spent 6% of total revenue and 20% on P&R revenue on "investments", most of that simply on maintenance.

For comparison, in 1974 with company revenue at $430M and Parks & Resorts (P&R) revenue at $280M, total investments were $67M, 16% of company revenue and 24% of P&R revenue. The 1970s were a difficult period for Disney, with an energy crisis severely impacting travel, and they had cut back tremendously on investments in an effort to keep the company afloat.

In 1983, the year after Epcot opened, Disney invested heavily in P&R. Corporately, there was a sense that WDW was the Disney brothers final legacy and a real commitment to seeing it turned into a complete resort. Until Eisner joined in 1984, Disney effectively had become a theme park company. With company revenue at $1.3B and Parks & Resorts (P&R) revenue at $1.0B, total investments were $418M, 32% of company revenue and 42% of P&R revenue.

In 1994, Disney was in the middle of the "Disney Decade". With company revenue at $10.1B and Parks & Resorts (P&R) revenue at $3.5B, total investments were $2.9B, 29% of company revenue and 83% of P&R revenue.

In 2004, P&R still was suffering from a post-9/11 economy. (Things began to improve at the parks with the introduction of the less expensive Magic Your Way ticket and Disney's Magical Express in 2005.) With company revenue at $30.8B and Parks & Resorts (P&R) revenue at $7.8B, total investments were $1.4B, 5% of company revenue and 18% of P&R revenue.

(In case anyone wonders why I picked these years, I wanted to do 10-year increments but don't have complete data for every year. These years are approximately 10 years apart.)

As has always been true ever since DLR opened in 1955, the lion's share of investments have been in P&R. For example, in 2013, Disney spent $1.14B domestically plus another $970M internationally in P&R, for a total of $2.11B. (Recall that total investments for the year were $2.8B.) The resorts really are tremendous physical assets requiring constant capital.

What sticks out is the jump in total revenue after Eisner joined in 1984. When Eisner was brought on board, Disney's only successful segment was P&R. After that, the company as a whole began firing on all cylinders. Eisner (along with significant contributions from others) really did lead the effort to save Disney.

Still, Eisner invested heavily in the theme parks. Under Eisner, there were several years when annual investments exceeded $5B. This was in absolute dollars. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this was closer to $8B. Those of us who saw WDW expand tremendously during the "Disney Decade" know that a lot was spent in Orlando.

Just imagine what could be happening at WDW today if Disney was investing closer to $8B annually.

What also sticks out is that P&R investments have plummeted. Prior to 9/11, Disney was not afraid to spend big at the theme parks. Understandably, P&R investments collapsed in the post-9/11 economy, when travel and all vacation destinations were adversely impacted. However, it appears corporate attitudes never changed as the economy recovered.

When it comes to P&R investments, Disney's current senior executive management still operates like it's 2002.

WOW. Bravo! You've been kinda quiet lately, and hit us with a whopper post.

Seriously, why are you not working for this company? You alone could turn heads and make things happen.

Not sure it makes any difference whatsoever, but by adding more parks to the park lineup (globally) does it change the numbers, or better explain the decreasing percentages?

Again, well done. Phenomenal post.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom