The Spirited Sixth Sense ...

[TalkingHead]

One could conceivably make the argument that Universal may have been better off with a SDMT-like experience as well, it needs more family rides and theming after all.

I think you underestimate how family-friendly the Transformers/Spidey ride system is. Transformers may be visually intense, but a lot of young kids still ride it (and evidently have a blast).

So, no, I'm not sure that Universal would've been better off building a more overtly (and overtly decorated) "kid's ride."

As for Fantasyland, I would've preferred the Matterhorn. Or in seriousness, one or two or three more dark rides.

 

[flynnibus]

I honestly refuse to believe the 2+ billion on the mymagic+bands+fp+ is exclusively for these tech.
There must have been a huge tech backbone upgrade and systems upgrade (to handle the new systems).
And I know someone else already mentioned the tablets, training and the "cabins" for the support guys.

It's a multi-faceted deal. The elements needed to deliver the 'integrated experience' concept justified all kinds of pull through infrastructure upgrades that lifted the entire capability and integration level of the resort.

But we are sure to hear "FP+ isn't worth 2 billion", "Magic Bands isn't worth 2 billion", etc for decades to come because it helps support their position regardless of how accurate the claim is. When the world is devoid of facts, people will rush to make up their own. Ultimately because these features rely on many facets that had to be upgraded in unison... it's difficult to divy shared costs up to specific feature rollouts. In many ways, this is the best way to do it... by combining many value added features, you can tackle and justify large capital upgrades that normally would not be approved if each feature were asking for them individually.

For me it's never been about 'how big the price tag is' - it's always been about 'are they making the right choices' that not only give us the customers the best experience, but choices that allow the system to be sustainable vs an albatross around their neck. So far many aspects of this have not been heart warming in the sense of building confidence in their methodology.

 

[BrianLo]

I think you underestimate how family-friendly the Transformers/Spidey ride system is. Transformers may be visually intense, but a lot of young kids still ride it (and evidently have a blast).

So, no, I'm not sure that Universal would've been better off building a more overtly (and overtly decorated) "kid's ride."

As for Fantasyland, I would've preferred the Matterhorn. Or in seriousness, one or two or three more dark rides.

Not kids ride, a family ride. I agree Transformers can still be enjoyed by a wide age range, but it certainly doesn't cater to the more extremes of that age range, it is after all a thrill ride by nature.

My emphasis was more on the external theming point though, which USO has some serious issues with.

I do find it odd that you would have preferred Matterhorn, considering that's essentially what SDMT will be. Matterhorn is a very, very mild ride. It would have been a clone. Despite SDMT apparent lacklustre two show scenes, they almost are guaranteed to be a step above the Matterhorn's.

I do agree though that New Fantasyland could have used at least one additional D-ticket to be a more complete experience.

 

[jlsHouston]

It's a multi-faceted deal. The elements needed to deliver the 'integrated experience' concept justified all kinds of pull through infrastructure upgrades that lifted the entire capability and integration level of the resort.

But we are sure to hear "FP+ isn't worth 2 billion", "Magic Bands isn't worth 2 billion", etc for decades to come because it helps support their position regardless of how accurate the claim is. When the world is devoid of facts, people will rush to make up their own. Ultimately because these features rely on many facets that had to be upgraded in unison... it's difficult to divy shared costs up to specific feature rollouts. In many ways, this is the best way to do it... by combining many value added features, you can tackle and justify large capital upgrades that normally would not be approved if each feature were asking for them individually.

For me it's never been about 'how big the price tag is' - it's always been about 'are they making the right choices' that not only give us the customers the best experience, but choices that allow the system to be sustainable vs an albatross around their neck. So far many aspects of this have not been heart warming in the sense of building confidence in their methodology.

Your last sentence has got to be the most understated understatement I've seen you post.

 

[marni1971]

....ITs not just a theme park, its almost a right of passage in some families... .

Your whole post summed up perfectly how TDO in particular are living off the legacy of the name and the place.

 

[HM Spectre]

It's a multi-faceted deal. The elements needed to deliver the 'integrated experience' concept justified all kinds of pull through infrastructure upgrades that lifted the entire capability and integration level of the resort.

But we are sure to hear "FP+ isn't worth 2 billion", "Magic Bands isn't worth 2 billion", etc for decades to come because it helps support their position regardless of how accurate the claim is. When the world is devoid of facts, people will rush to make up their own.

Why is "the world devoid of facts" when it comes to this project though?

If what they've done IS worth $2 billion, why not just say it to analysts? Even if you can't allocate expense to the dollar, give a rough estimate. Talk about how the infrastructure upgrades will benefit WDW going forward. Talk about the revenue Magic Bands will help bring in and your strategy for leveraging the information they provide. Talk about how FP+ will increase park capacity (and not just on a random day in December). You don't have to break this down item by item to justify an entire project.

Instead, the silence is deafening. So of course, people are going to make up their own facts but I'll tell you this much - if this project were a success with a budget in line with the benefits, you wouldn't have to make up facts because those in charge wouldn't shut up about their success.

Call me a skeptic but when people whose careers are built on the success of a projects like this are making excuses and not providing any information, it's absolutely reasonable to assume the worst.

 

[flynnibus]

Why is "the world devoid of facts" when it comes to this project though?

If what they've done IS worth $2 billion, why not just say it to analysts? Even if you can't allocate expense to the dollar, give a rough estimate. Talk about how the infrastructure upgrades will benefit WDW going forward. Talk about the revenue Magic Bands will help bring in and your strategy for leveraging the information they provide. Talk about how FP+ will increase park capacity (and not just on a random day in December). You don't have to break this down item by item to justify an entire project.

When does Disney ever talk about itemized spending on projects or attractions? It's just not in their game. Anyone holding their breathe for a ROI breakdown are gonna pass out. Disney is going to talk about revenues and their key metrics moving... not how much they spent where to get there.

Instead, the silence is deafening. So of course, people are going to make up their own facts but I'll tell you this much - if this project were a success with a budget in line with the benefits, you wouldn't have to make up facts because those in charge wouldn't shut up about their success.

But they wouldn't be saying "$500 million was so worth it.." they would simply be saying "Our revenue has grown 10% QoQ, driven by our new initiatives blah blah blah".

Call me a skeptic but when people whose careers are built on the success of a projects like this are making excuses and not providing any information, it's absolutely reasonable to assume the worst.

Nothing wrong with skeptical... but making absurd claims to justify one's belief is more than that.

 

[TalkingHead]

Not kids ride, a family ride. I agree Transformers can still be enjoyed by a wide age range, but it certainly doesn't cater to the more extremes of that age range, it is after all a thrill ride by nature.

My emphasis was more on the external theming point though, which USO has some serious issues with.

I do find it odd that you would have preferred Matterhorn, considering that's essentially what SDMT will be. Matterhorn is a very, very mild ride. It would have been a clone. Despite SDMT apparent lacklustre two show scenes, they almost are guaranteed to be a step above the Matterhorn's.

I do agree though that New Fantasyland could have used at least one additional D-ticket to be a more complete experience.

Matterhorn was said in jest. I'd prefer it only because I've always liked it at DL. But given its scale, it wouldn't work on the SDMT plot. And I think the scale of the Matterhorn is larger than what you're getting with SDMT, so I disagree that they're essentially the same.

I think the front half of USF is a mess, but the rest of the park is amply detailed (well, Kidzone needs work, too). The soundstage look (Production Central?) could really stand to be replaced. The Transformers building fits the blocky look of that section of the park, so it doesn't bother me. And, honestly, I don't think it looks bad when viewed from the New York section. The entrance with Optimus has a nice placement that works when you're approaching from San Fran/NY, along the waterfront.

For me, I'd take an E-ticket ride with an adequate exterior (like DL's Pirates or Uni's Transformers) over an adequate ride with an E-ticket exterior, any day.

 

[HM Spectre]

When does Disney ever talk about itemized spending on projects or attractions? It's just not in their game. Anyone holding their breathe for a ROI breakdown are gonna pass out. Disney is going to talk about revenues and their key metrics moving... not how much they spent where to get there.

They're never going to itemize it for anyone but when you spend what looks like upward of $2B on a park project that at face value isn't going to drive a key metric (like new attractions would at the gate), analysts are going to ask the financial benefit. Thus far they have no answer.

But they wouldn't be saying "$500 million was so worth it.." they would simply be saying "Our revenue has grown 10% QoQ, driven by our new initiatives blah blah blah".

You're right but again, if I'm an analyst on that call, I'm responding to that with "understood, but how specifically has MM+ helped grow that revenue?"

Nothing wrong with skeptical... but making absurd claims to justify one's belief is more than that.

Guess it depends on what claims you're talking about. Saying it's not worth $2B at this point in time seems to be pretty accurate because no one has given any indication that it will be. "It's too early to tell" is very different than expressing confidence it'll work.

 

[CDavid]

When you keep creating the same straw man... Yes you will be correct. But what you are claiming is neither factual nor the intent.

Please explain which part is not factual, that a $2.0 billion plus investment in new attractions would not be substantial, or that MM+ wasn't necessary to obtain an attraction head count. You are debating points which are not in contention, that I largely agree with, and to which i never referenced in the original post ("Speaking solely of attraction count information").

 

[flynnibus]

You're right but again, if I'm an analyst on that call, I'm responding to that with "understood, but how specifically has MM+ helped grow that revenue?"

One would hope... but the company will do all it can to bury those kinds of numbers in aggregates and talk in generalizations. I don't see that kind of scrutiny coming, not in the expose fashion people want it to be.

Guess it depends on what claims you're talking about. Saying it's not worth $2B at this point in time seems to be pretty accurate because no one has given any indication that it will be. "It's too early to tell" is very different than expressing confidence it'll work.

If you build a $500k house.. and someone says "That roof isn't worth $500k..." - you don't call that accurate because no one gave you a breakdown of the roof cost vs the rest of the house. You call it inaccurate because you know that the roof was no where near 100% of the cost the project. The roof doesn't stand on it's own, but you don't attest the entire cost of the project to the roof. Yet, that is what people keep doing with FP+ and MB, etc. They have no idea what those projects really cost... but in the rant it's much easier to just call it $2b (total investment) and make the statement seem more extreme.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Please explain which part is not factual, that a $2.0 billion plus investment in new attractions would not be substantial, or that MM+ wasn't necessary to obtain an attraction head count. You are debating points which are not in contention, that I largely agree with, and to which i never referenced in the original post ("Speaking solely of attraction count information").

MyMagic+ is not just about attraction head counts and the money never would have been considered for attractions.

 

[gusgoose]

When I see the Magic Kingdom stuffed with strollers at 10 PM at night, I begin to question how adults are raising their children and how the current Disney plays down to them.

Sorry to be the guy who lurks for 360 pages and then suddenly pipes in at random, but as one of those questionable adults you're calling out, I thought it would only be fair for me to respond.

I always enjoy, and often marvel at your posts, though I typically disagree with this sentiment you throw around (and most people around here seem to share) that Disney used to be a safe haven for teenagers and young adults that has now been overrun by stroller-bound toddlers and their brand-obsessed pixie dust-snorting rube parents. I think I may be of a different generation from you, but from about the age of 12 to my late 20s, I never considered Disney as a definite vacation destination. I also don't know anyone my age that felt any differently. And most of that was in the so-called "glory days" of Disney in the '90s.

I'm sure you and others can come back with a bunch of empirical and anecdotal evidence that supposedly disproves me. That's fine. But I'm not sure why you're taking the time to personally attack my parenting skills. The first time my parents took me to WDW was at age 3. The first time my wife went was age 5. We took my son at age 3. We all had an incredible (and for him, enriching) experience and though it's not the same level of greatness it once was, I'm not sure how I was being "played down to." We were those parents pushing our son around in a stroller at 10 PM, and he was loving it. If we were in the French Quarter or the Vegas Strip, I can understand your judgment. But I'm a questionable parent for pushing my son around the Magic Kingdom at 10 PM?

 

[flynnibus]

Please explain which part is not factual, that a $2.0 billion plus investment in new attractions would not be substantial, or that MM+ wasn't necessary to obtain an attraction head count. You are debating points which are not in contention, that I largely agree with, and to which i never referenced in the original post ("Speaking solely of attraction count information").

You attach the total investment dollar of 2-2.5 billion and hang that on being spent to 'obtain attraction head count'. The NextGen cost of 2+ billion dollars is not just for 1 feature, so why do you keep attaching on aspect of it to it's total cost? It's like I posted to HM...

If you build a $500k house.. and someone says "That roof isn't worth $500k..." - you don't call that accurate because no one gave you a breakdown of the roof cost vs the rest of the house. You call it inaccurate because you know that the roof was no where near 100% of the cost the project. The roof doesn't stand on it's own, but you don't attest the entire cost of the project to the roof. Yet, that is what people keep doing with FP+ and MB, etc. They have no idea what those projects really cost... but in the rant it's much easier to just call it $2b (total investment) and make the statement seem more extreme.

Imagine if your original post read..

I would tend to argue that the $150 million spend to get the advanced tracking data appears to be a poor investment, at least as opposed to investing a similar amount in new attractions, but it certainly wasn't necessary to develop a way to count heads.

The dollar amount you are associating with the statement is not insignificant to the agreement people may have with it due to the insane scale of the total investment NextGen covers.

 

[doctornick]

I do find it odd that you would have preferred Matterhorn, considering that's essentially what SDMT will be. Matterhorn is a very, very mild ride. It would have been a clone. Despite SDMT apparent lacklustre two show scenes, they almost are guaranteed to be a step above the Matterhorn's.

Yes. At this point, I think that the Matterhorn is probably a great comp for the 7DMT. Both are mild coasters that aren't very long rides (the Matterhorn has a run time of 2-2.5 minutes depending on which track). The Matterhorn only has one lift hill, while the 7DMT will have two. The Matterhorn is likely faster and longer, while the 7DMT has the rocking effect of the vehicles. The theming for the Matterhorn is relatively sparse though it does have a good bit of indoor time; it will be interesting to see how the indoor parts of the 7DMT compare.

It's also interesting to note that the previous height restriction of the Matterhorn was 38" (which is what the 7DMT will be) though it became higher with the new vehicles.

 

[The_Mesh_Hatter]

Matterhorn might me similar to Seven Dwarf's Mine Train ride length time wise but Matterhorn has significantly more track and a far more elaborate layout. It's no comparison.

 

[doctornick]

Matterhorn might me similar to Seven Dwarf's Mine Train ride length time wise but Matterhorn has significantly more track and a far more elaborate layout. It's no comparison.

The Matterhorn is faster and longer, I agree. But I'm not sure what you mean by "more elaborate layout" -- it's a pretty basic steel coaster in terms of the track, where you go up the lift hill and then you just coast down. There's two tracks, so that is I suppose a little elaborate, but the ride itself is basically just downhill coasting in and out of caverns that are just themed to being icy. The Abomina Snowman show scenes are pretty minimalist as well.

As I said, the Matterhorn is fasting and more "thrilling" while the 7DMT has the rocking effect of the carts and looks to have more detailed show scenes (albeit less indoor time than the Matterhorn). I'm not sure why you would say there is no comparison. The Matterhorn, while old and beloved, is not exactly the pinacle of WDI projects.

 

[ParentsOf4]

But I'm a questionable parent for pushing my son around the Magic Kingdom at 10 PM?

Children below a certain age need sleep, and lots of it. Please refer to WebMD for a guide:

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/sleep-children

For children ages 3 to 6, the recommendation is 10-to-12 hours per day. Presumably, children above this age should not require a stroller.

It doesn't matter whether it's a vacation or not. Parents should make sure their children get the correct amount of sleep every day.

It's also important not to vary their sleep patterns just because it's a vacation. If they are used to waking up at a certain time, then that time should be respected, even on vacation.

To make sure our young children received sufficient sleep, it meant both an afternoon nap and leaving the theme parks no later than 8 PM to make sure they were in bed no later than 9 PM.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

It doesn't matter whether it's a vacation or not. Parents should make sure their children get the correct amount of sleep every day.

The puking toddler I saw at MNSSHP close to midnight was having loads of fun.

 

[Astro Blaster]

The Matterhorn is faster and longer, I agree. But I'm not sure what you mean by "more elaborate layout" -- it's a pretty basic steel coaster in terms of the track, where you go up the lift hill and then you just coast down. There's two tracks, so that is I suppose a little elaborate, but the ride itself is basically just downhill coasting in and out of caverns that are just themed to being icy. The Abomina Snowman show scenes are pretty minimalist as well.

As I said, the Matterhorn is fasting and more "thrilling" while the 7DMT has the rocking effect of the carts and looks to have more detailed show scenes (albeit less indoor time than the Matterhorn). I'm not sure why you would say there is no comparison. The Matterhorn, while old and beloved, is not exactly the pinacle of WDI projects.

Flame away if you must, but I went on Matterhorn for the first time a few weeks ago and it's not on my list of "must-go" attractions for the next time I vist DLR. While I enjoyed the theming very much, the actual ride was too herky-jerky and I don't think my large-ish frame (6'4, 215 lbs) was meant for it. Glad I did it, but my lower half got beaten up a bit. It also didn't seem that fast, but maybe that is variable (also, I sat in the very back, if that makes a difference).