But then QS is cheaper than the sit down places so maybe its a cunning plan for create chaos at the QSs that are open so you'll be more likely to spend more and hit the sit down places.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Things you never understood about the parks, that maybe somebody can explain
- Thread starter mergatroid
- Start date
But then QS is cheaper than the sit down places so maybe its a cunning plan for create chaos at the QSs that are open so you'll be more likely to spend more and hit the sit down places.
rob0519
Well-Known Member
Probably because there are so many young children in the parks. A for or five year old is not going to go on Space Mountain. I personally don't think they have enough rides for younger children in the parks other than MK.
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
Because John Carter was awesome, and I'll challenge anyone who says otherwise to a wiffle bat duel!
JordanNite
Well-Known Member
But it also made Disney a loss of over 200 million dollar. As did Tomorrow World. Lone Ranger also lost somewhere in the region of 200 million dollars.
Why not just invest 200 million in a ride?
G00fyDad
Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Films generate direct revenue and attractions have not in 30 years.
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
That kind of talk sounds like someone wants a hollow plastic bat across the thigh! And you'll go, "Hey, that stings a bit! Please, stop that."
I'm pretty sure they didn't expect that to happen though did they? It's not they were sat in a meeting and somebody said "I know, you'll love this guys. Let's produce a movie that loses around $200 million instead of spending that amount on a new attraction"
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
I believe one of the "chat with the Imagineers" videos mentioned they brought in a Swiss watchmaker or something of the sort.
JordanNite
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure they didn't expect that to happen though did they? It's not they were sat in a meeting and somebody said "I know, you'll love this guys. Let's produce a movie that loses around $200 million instead of spending that amount on a new attraction"
The point is there is always a risk with movies (along with rewards). The theme park division has shown if you build they will come. Yet, we so no investment in the parks.
People say they are two seperate divisions, but they are controlled by ONE company, and ONE CEO.
Why not divert one set of 'LONE RANGER' movie and invest in the parks once a year?
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
Why did Lilo and Stitch at one point do meet and greets in Disney's Animal Kingdom?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Except there is no way to demonstrate this as true.
I think you mean "No investment that you like". Right now there's been extensive maintenance in the MK, Avatarland is currently being constructed along with a huge project called Disney Springs. We're probably talking a lot more than $200 million there too so 'no investment' isn't strictly true. more likely 'not investment that pleases you'.
I'm not completely blind to your point though and my original reply was a little tongue in cheek if I'm being honest.
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
JordanNite
Well-Known Member
Businesses do not work that way!
Ah, but they do work that way. At the end of the day Bob Iger controls the company and can divert funds to where he so wishes.
JordanNite
Well-Known Member
Ridiculous.
Any maintenance comes out the millions the parks generate throughout the year, rather than pulling on some injected capital to keep their upkeep.
If you believe Disney have been investing in their theme parks over the past decade then i'm afraid i can't even continue any conversation with you.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Wrong. Absolutely and completely wrong. There are distinct legal entities with their own accounting, all of which must follow various laws and regulations. Bob Iger is also not the one sitting there making every single decision.
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
You might as well ask why the President can't just take money from the FDA and give it to NASA.