Ordered. Merci!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Transformative Multi-Year Expansion Announced for WDS Paris
- Thread starter Jwhee
- Start date
nickys
Premium Member
My French isn’t good enough to read it, I fear.
Absimilliard
Well-Known Member
You should find it fascinating, as he touches on some of the small things that Disney didn't "get" with the french market. He points out how he had to change the burgers as guests weren't happy with the lean, but very dry, beef patties. After sampling every burger served at the park, he saw what they meant and went to a different recipe that cost quite a few francs to change, but worked out tremendously in the long run.
Disney was not the only one to make that kind of mistake, as Warner Bros and their third party master planners made a critical food mistake in Spain. What was then Warner Bros Movie World Madrid had a major issue every day during lunch and dinner. Spainards like to sit down and spend a lot of time when eating. The park food facilities didn't have the number of seats that allowed that, as it was designed under an american way of thinking where guests would spend say 30 minutes eating, not 90. They also all wanted to eat at the same time. Softer incentives like discounts didn't work, so they had to reconfigure the restaurants to take into account the local habits.
My French isn’t good enough to read it, I fear.
Bengination
New Member
Hi, first comment on the forum
but I wanted to react to this. I've learned a few weeks ago that the excuse "they had to build it because of the contract with France" wasn't that true. I read a French article from 1999 in which the president of Disneyland Paris told that the deadline in the convention with the French Government was 2011. Eisner and the rest of the company said they had to open in 2002 after people were starting to question the decision to open the park that soon.The original plans after the success of Space Mountain were to build new attractions in the Disneyland Park. But Eisner, after the success of Disney-MGM Studios and certain of the success of Animal Kingdom, insisted to build this second gate. He thought it was the best thing to fill the hotels.
The rest is history, this failed and Disneyland Paris inherited a first gate that needed to be expanded and a second gate that would cannibalise any major investment for the next 30 years...
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
Thanks for this, and also to everyone who has added such great information about the history of DLRP over the past few posts!Hi, first comment on the forum
The original plans after the success of Space Mountain were to build new attractions in the Disneyland Park. But Eisner, after the success of Disney-MGM Studios and certain of the success of Animal Kingdom, insisted to build this second gate. He thought it was the best thing to fill the hotels.
The rest is history, this failed and Disneyland Paris inherited a first gate that needed to be expanded and a second gate that would cannibalise any major investment for the next 30 years...
I'm glad you mention this, as my memory from the time is that this insistence from the French government was more something that appeared after the fact than the real driving force for WDSP opening when it did. Considering the precarious situation of the resort even then and the generally relaxed attitude of the French government to further expansion ever since, it seems unusual that Disney would have been backed into such a tight corner if they really did not have the resources to build a second gate. This was also the period when Disney was experimenting with building cheaper parks, though this was admittedly the most extreme example.
The question of how much of the blame for the state of WDSP at opening lies at the feet of Disney management versus the French government and possibly Imagineering is very interesting to me, as it really has been a disaster for the resort.
Absimilliard
Well-Known Member
Beside Hop!, another book was written in french that goes in details into the creation and evolution of DLP and Bengination post made me return to it. Seems like the truth was somewhere between what I said and what Bengination wrote.
The second gate was to be the subject of a second agreement between Disney and the various governments. As the original plan was to open the Disney MGM Studios Europe in 1996, then a european Epcot around 2000. That was how ambitious Disney was prior to the resort opening. The agreement for the second gate was to be signed on July 13th 1993, but the first year's financial disaster meant that on July 8th 1993, EuroDisney put an end to discussions and Bourguignon started asking for relaxed terms when it came to the 1987 contract and put the project on ice. Reading further along the book, it was revealed that by 1993, 1.12 billion french francs (nearly 190 million USD) had already been spent in the development of Disney MGM Studios Europe. In 1994, Prince AlWaleed from Saudi Arabia invested 1.9 billion francs (323 million USD) into Euro Disney and that was the main driver that lead to the financial restructuration, with the effect as well of giving him 24% of the shares and reducing the Walt Disney Company shares to 39% from 49%.
By 1998, a black cloud was again looming overhead: seeing that the park attendance was stuck around 12 million guests after the boom from Space Mountain wore off, the french government decided that attendance would take off once a second gate was built and told the Walt Disney Company to build it ASAP, with the government going to the banks to find financing. Gilles Pelisson, who had succeeded Philippe Bourguignon as Euro Disney president, had no choice but to go ahead with the project, even though he had until 2011 per the terms of the 1987 agreement. On january 29th 1999, Gilles Pelisson announced that the second gate was going to open soon and placed April 12th 2002 as the ideal opening date, which barely left 3 years for WDI to finish designing something and build the park, which was a challenge given the building codes in France and securing financing, since the Walt Disney Company could not just cut a large check.
Re-reading that book (Disney et la France: les vingts ans d'Euro Disneyland) raise a few questions to me: if it only cost Disney then 521 million french francs (88.59 million USD) to add 6 rides in 1993, thus solving the capacity shortcomings of the first park, why didn't WDI find a way to do it within the 2.5 billion USD the park cost in the first place? It may have been the most beautiful park then, but WDI was more focused on doing a vanity project, rather than a functional and profitable park.
That 190 million USD was spent on designing Disney MGM Studios Europe raises even more questions. Why is it that only a few short years after, after spending over 610 million euros (532 million USD) to design and construct it, the park was such a deplorable and ugly thing? Why didn't WDI just continue along the same lines, rather than scrapping everything and going back to a blank slate?
I’d hazard a guess they thought the 190m would lead to a park needing another billion plus. They went with something they could open for just half that amount. Admittedly some of the MGME plans did come to fruition albeit on a smaller scale (studios 1-3, a tram tour etc)
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
Again, very interesting discussion from everyone on the evolution of DLRP and the studios. Thanks!
Honestly, whenever I have scrolled through his Twitter/X feed, it has been filled discussion of the Toy Story lands and WDSP projects that make it look as though his specialisation at WDI was adapting relatively affordable off-the-shelf ride systems to the parks with a light overlay of theming. I'm curious to know if he goes beyond just showing these kinds of projects, though, the explain issues faced by the Imagineers when trying to design the park that might give some insight into why it was so underwhelming and frankly ugly.
I just briefly wanted to come back to this comment as I don't follow Shull on Twitter very closely and am interested to know his take on the Imagineering of WDSP.
Honestly, whenever I have scrolled through his Twitter/X feed, it has been filled discussion of the Toy Story lands and WDSP projects that make it look as though his specialisation at WDI was adapting relatively affordable off-the-shelf ride systems to the parks with a light overlay of theming. I'm curious to know if he goes beyond just showing these kinds of projects, though, the explain issues faced by the Imagineers when trying to design the park that might give some insight into why it was so underwhelming and frankly ugly.
The delusions of one poster aside, this has been a fascinating discussion. Thanks to all!
Kevin_W
Well-Known Member
I don't think this is unique to France... Americans don't like dry beef patties in their hamburgers either.
It will, they need people to have access to the Regal View Restaurant and World of Frozen from both sides. Besides, 3 snack kiosks+ 1 pavillon will fill the gaps between Cars Road Trip and the World of Frozen.
SplashJacket
Well-Known Member
Potentially leaked (most likely fan-generated AI content) Lion King Land Concept art for Disney Adventure World.
Last edited:
DisneyDean97
Well-Known Member
This can't be real... the ride on the right is clearly from the Moana concept art from Animal Kingdom, and the pride rock mountain in the back looks like its bad AI? Idk, I'm not convinced this is real.
SplashJacket
Well-Known Member
I fully agree, the way the building rooflines connect/attach along with random image artifacts heavily suggests it's AI.
Also appears to have a phantom coaster track going through the land, which futher discredits its authenticity.
Earlie the Pearlie
Well-Known Member
I concur. The layout is terrible as well; why would both the view from the final drop and the view of the final drop be blocked from the entrance by a big (generic) mountain? And why wouldn't Pride Rock be part of the boat ride? And why are there little... planes?... in the top left? Do we have any sources other than Shull? No offense to him, but he once said a piece of OBVIOUS AI art was "probably" AI.
looks more like a bridge from the tower to something
SplashJacket
Well-Known Member
Regardless, a human did not draw these rooflines. A kindergartener could draw rooflines in perspectives better (theoretically).
SplashJacket
Well-Known Member
Also worth noting he posted a concept for Shanghai Disneyland's new coaster that doesn't even remotely line up with permits
TheDisneyParksfanC8
Well-Known Member
Jim's clearly trolling us.