Tower of Terror better at DCA... uggghh!?

[NowInc]

Man..id hate to see what you guys would say if you ever went to the tokyo or paris parks. THOSE parks have a budget, and i can tell you it shows. The DCA version of TOT only seems "better" because its newer. That happens no matter what/where the attraction is built. A "version 2" will always seem superior to the original, but that isnt always the truth.

even if it WERE true..uh...WDW has 4 parks...California has 2. I dont think the WDW crew are getting the shaft here.

 

[The_CEO]

Originally posted by NowInc
Man..id hate to see what you guys would say if you ever went to the tokyo or paris parks. THOSE parks have a budget, and i can tell you it shows. The DCA version of TOT only seems "better" because its newer. That happens no matter what/where the attraction is built. A "version 2" will always seem superior to the original, but that isnt always the truth.

even if it WERE true..uh...WDW has 4 parks...California has 2. I dont think the WDW crew are getting the shaft here.

Correcto in my opinion as well.

 

[tomm4004]

Man..id hate to see what you guys would say if you ever went to the tokyo or paris parks. THOSE parks have a budget, and i can tell you it shows.

Tokyo Disney Sea had a budget of over $2 billion - and it shows! Walt Disney Studios Paris had a budget of about $300 million - and it shows! Tokyo's Pooh ride had a budget of $100 million - and it shows!

 

[andre85]

Originally posted by tomm4004
Tokyo Disney Sea had a budget of over $2 billion - and it shows! Walt Disney Studios Paris had a budget of about $300 million - and it shows! Tokyo's Pooh ride had a budget of $100 million - and it shows!

Walt Disney World had a budget significantly higher than any of those figures, and it shows!

Seriously, it's not even fair to compare parks. Tokyo Disney is in a fairly confined space, as opposed to Disney World which has 42 (give or take a few) square miles to work with. It makes sense that they'd throw as much money as they could towards their second park, because if it failed they would have been up crap creek (darn rated G language).

IOA is also a park that cost allegedly 2 billion dollars, yet I wouldn't consider it better than any of Disney's. Comparing monetary differences are not an accurate way of gauging a park's worth.

 

[The_CEO]

Originally posted by tomm4004
Tokyo Disney Sea had a budget of over $2 billion - and it shows!

I'll be straight forward...


I don't belive you one bit.

 

[DisneyOhio]

^ Oh, he's pretty close! It was more than the budget for the WHOLE Disneyland Resort expansion..

 

[andre85]

Originally posted by The_CEO
I'll be straight forward...


I don't believe you one bit.

Even if that figure were true, here are some facts to consider. Tokyo's Disney Sea rests on 180 acres of land, as opposed to DCA's mere 55. Disneyland's Downtown Disney (which was part of the Disneyland expansion mentioned above) is a mere 20 acres. So, 55+20=75 acres. 180 divided by 75=2.4. That means that DCA and Downtown Disney could fit within Disney's Sea alloted area almost 2 and a half times.

The cost of Tokyo Disney was allegedly 2.4 billion. Disneyland's expansion was roughly 1.4 billion. Now unless my math is off (which I doubt), more money was invested into Disneyland's expansion per acre than Tokyo's Disney Sea. (Hell, for the sake of argument, let's say Disneyland's expansion has a few more acres I didn't account for, that still leaves us with a figure at least on par with Tokyo Disney's offering.

It's interesting how people (especially Jim Hill) do not take into account a park's size, when in fact, that's a crucial element to the development process.

 

[PeterAlt]

Originally posted by The_CEO
I'll be straight forward...


I don't belive you one bit.

My 2 cents on the "what cost more" argument:

(1) Project costs for IOA, TDS, and DCA all include inrastructure, parking garages, roads, monorails (TDS), and HOTELS and any shopping areas (i.e. Downtown Disney for DCA and City Walk for IOA). So, the actual price is much less once you take all that crap out!

(2) Disney's Animal Kingdom cost $800 million and includes only some access roads, no monorail expansions, Animal Kingdom Lodge was built with seperate funding and is not included in the $800 million figure. So, looking at it this way, DAK was the most expensive park built lately. Add $100 million for the cost of Expedition Everest and whatever Asia and Dinorama cost to the $800 million and you have a park worth over $1 billion!

(3) INFLATION! By far the most cosly park was EPCOT, costing $1.2 billion in 1982 dollars. Calculate the cost of inflation to that, $100 million for Mission: Space, and whatever Wonder of Life, Test Track, Norway, Living Seas, Morocco, Horizons (what a shame there's nothing to show for it), year 2000 enhancements, and the 1994 enhancements and you have a park off the charts! To be fair, you have to subtract the cost of the monorail expansion and access roads to EPCOT.

(4) At this point I'm just rambling, but Disney-MGM cost about $400 million in 1989 dollars... Someone figure in inflation and add the cost of Tower of Tower with Sunset Boulevard, Rock 'N Rollercoaster, MuppetVision, Star Tours, and Fantasmic! and I'd say MGM's cost is about the same as DAK's.

(5) Magic Kingdom... oh boy, this one would be VERY complicated to figure out... You'd have to subtract the costs of creating the Seven Seas Lagoon, the monorail, the Contemporary and Polynesian resorts, and Fort Wilderness campground, adjust it for inflation, and then add the costs of everything that's been built there since, including $100 million for Splash Mountain, Space Mountain, Pirates, New Tomorowland, and so much more!!!!

I would love to see what the real numbers are!!!! Anyone have some spare time to add it all up????

 

[andre85]

PeterAlt, great post. With our powers combined, we are Captain [insert something clever/comical here]

 

[paulcmartens]

...regarding cost...

For those quoting the price of DisneySeas etc. There are a couple of things that are maybe not accounted for.

1) exchange rates. Spend a billion dollars in Turkey and you will look like a trillionaire (or so I've heard).

2) are you figuring the amount of cash Disney is spending on those parks, AND oriental land company? Curious...I thought they split costs.

3) what about government agreements like...build another park, we'll put up the infrastructure...that's a boat load of savings.

Yes, Tomm4004...how much money you spend shows...too true.

 

[xfkirsten]

Re: Re: Re: Tower of Terror better at DCA... uggghh!?

Originally posted by PeterAlt
Kirsten - lol :animwink: DCA should get an improved version... afterall, they deserve it, after Disney didn't deliver on its initial opening... What I'm saying is that I hope they eventually add some of the newer special effects to Florida's version, and not leave us with another "Pirates".

Ah, see, that I can definitely understand. Once they find a technlogy that works, then yes, I think they should add it to the already existing versions, if possible.

-Kirsten

 

[xfkirsten]

Originally posted by CTXRover
Until people can get on DCA's TOT we won't know for sure if one is actually better than the other. But I think this thread is a little ironic because if you go over to any Disneyland forum, there are always threads about why does WDW get all the good stuff and DL always gets the second-rate, hand-me down attractions. I just thought it was funny how "fans" of a particular resort see things.....anyway

About DCA's tower, from my understanding....

There are 3 drop shafts vs WDW's 2 drop shafts. Although there is no "5D" room the elevators travel through to get from a lifting shaft to a dropping shaft, the elevators do move horizontally in and out of a "loading/unloading" station. In fact, each "shaft" has two loading/unloading stations, one on top of another. Thus, DCA's boiler room is nearly twice as big as WDW's and will actually consist of two floors from which guests can board. (The second floor is accessed by stairs and consists of a "catwalk" type walkway...in other words, the two story boiler room is one big room)

This will allow DCA's tower to have a good capacity by allowing each shaft to have an elevator in the drop shaft while also allowing another elevator for the same shaft to be loading/unloading. And this is the same for all THREE of DCA'sdrop shafts.

Yup, that's it exactly! I have no idea where all this one drop shaft stuff started, but there are definitely three! I've seen all of them running during some of the testing they've been doing as of late (not with people in them, of course).

-Kirsten

 

[tomm4004]

I'll be straight forward... I don't belive you one bit.

You don't believe it cost over $2 billion or you don't believe that it shows?

2) are you figuring the amount of cash Disney is spending on those parks, AND oriental land company? Curious...I thought they split costs.

OLC paid for Tokyo Disney Sea.

The cost of Tokyo Disney was allegedly 2.4 billion. Disneyland's expansion was roughly 1.4 billion. Now unless my math is off (which I doubt), more money was invested into Disneyland's expansion per acre than Tokyo's Disney Sea.

And this means what? I have to admit I'm completely baffled by the arguments here - or rationalizations. So if Disney built a three acre park but it cost a lot per acre that would be alright? Firstly, I don't think TDS is that big. Still, it is more elaborate (per acre of otherwise) than any of the parks in Florida, including IOA (I can't speak to DCA) and my favourite park to visit. As for costs, does anyone have official numbers? I've heard $3 billion for Tokyo and $1 billion for DL. What matters is the end result anyway.

So, looking at it this way, DAK was the most expensive park built lately

It sure doesn't look it. I mean they didn't get their money worth compared to TDS. Shrubbery must be expensive!

 

[andre85]

Originally posted by tomm4004
mean they didn't get their money worth compared to TDS. Shrubbery must be expensive!

Animal Kingdom is one of Disney’s most beautiful parks imo. They most certainly got their money’s worth.

 

[The_CEO]

Originally posted by tomm4004
You don't believe it cost over $2 billion or you don't believe that it shows? OLC paid for Tokyo Disney Sea.And this means what? I have to admit I'm completely baffled by the arguments here - or rationalizations. So if Disney built a three acre park but it cost a lot per acre that would be alright? Firstly, I don't think TDS is that big. Still, it is more elaborate (per acre of otherwise) than any of the parks in Florida, including IOA (I can't speak to DCA) and my favourite park to visit. As for costs, does anyone have official numbers? I've heard $3 billion for Tokyo and $1 billion for DL. What matters is the end result anyway. It sure doesn't look it. I mean they didn't get their money worth compared to TDS. Shrubbery must be expensive!

I was stating that it won't cost nearly 2 BILLION to build TZTOT in Tokyo.

 

[xfkirsten]

As far as TDR budgets go, they get more than the rest of the parks because OLC is willing to shell out the money. At Soarin' once, I was waiting in line behind an Imagineer, and we got to talking about TDR... he said that everyone he works with is very jealous of the budgets that Tokyo Disney gets.

-Kirsten

 

[tomm4004]

I was stating that it won't cost nearly 2 BILLION to build TZTOT in Tokyo.

I wrote that Tokyo Disney Sea cost over $2 billion. Not TZTOT!

Animal Kingdom is one of Disney? most beautiful parks imo. They most certainly got their money? worth.

Agreed. But I don't see where $800 million went. Landscaping can't be that expensive. I realize there's all the behind the scenes zoo keeping aspect so perhaps that adds up. But certainly the cost of the rides couldn't have been too much. Maybe those gorillas eat a lot of bananas!

At Soarin' once, I was waiting in line behind an Imagineer, and we got to talking about TDR... he said that everyone he works with is very jealous of the budgets that Tokyo Disney gets.

Why are they jealous? Don't they realize that on a per acre basis Tokyo's budgets are actually much lower than DCA or AK?

 

[xfkirsten]

Originally posted by andre85
Animal Kingdom is one of Disney’s most beautiful parks imo. They most certainly got their money’s worth.

Beautiful, yes, I agree! However, there's really not a whole lot to do in DAK, IMHO. Kilmanjaro, Kali, Dinosaur, Tarzan Rocks, FOLK, and Rafiki's Planet Watch is about it. I'm a huge animal person (I want to get into zookeeping) and even I would feel a bit shafted if I paid full price for a ticket to DAK. That's not to say it's a bad park, there's just not enough to do there at the moment that sets it apart from any other zoo. I can get the same kind of entertainment here at SeaWorld, where I get in free.

(As a side note, the bird show at DAK is the same one that used to be in SeaWorld of California, right down to some of the jokes)

-Kirsten

 

[xfkirsten]

Originally posted by tomm4004
Why are they jealous? Don't they realize that on a per acre basis Tokyo's budgets are actually much lower than DCA or AK?

As he explained it, if they come up with a great idea for an attraction that will be really expensive, OLC will put up the money to do it. Unlike stateside, where they'll start looking for alternatives that are lesss expensive.

-Kirsten

 

[paulcmartens]

jealous...

when I spoke with an imagineer (and I don't believe this by the way, I thought his figures were wrong) but he also said how well funded TDR is. For splash mountain, he was saying one billion was spent on that attraction, infrasturcture was included in that.

Now this guy wasn't an idiot...I just thought it was amazing. Anyone bin on TD SM?