Just found this new story online. Interesting.
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/BUSINESS/704050341/1003
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/BUSINESS/704050341/1003
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Universal will spend $120M on attractions
- Thread starter teebin
- Start date
Not WDW news/rumors, but meh.
Oh good, they can almost build Everest.
They need to invest A LOT more than that, last time I was there I just couldn't believe the shoddy condition of the attractions, with things like holes in the skin of the AAs on Jurassic Park ... terrible.
Buford
New Member
I wonder how the major decrease in 2006 IOA attendance would be addressed, then...........
DisneyBuff
New Member
When did they close back to the future? That was my favorite ride. Old yes, but it was still fun.
hokielutz
Well-Known Member
In today's market... $120 million will not go too far with headliner attractions. Note in the bottom of the article that the space center is putting in a $60M space shuttle simulator.
So looking at the math... Universal could put 2 quality simulator attractions into place.... but that probably isn't the case because they have spend $30m to $40m each of the last two years on other things. So there is going to be at least $20 to $30M that they will spend on licensing and capital upkeep. The rest could go to new attractions. And since they say multiple... some may be yawners and could eek out one real headliner attraction from this year's investments along with other supporting attractions.
Oh well
So looking at the math... Universal could put 2 quality simulator attractions into place.... but that probably isn't the case because they have spend $30m to $40m each of the last two years on other things. So there is going to be at least $20 to $30M that they will spend on licensing and capital upkeep. The rest could go to new attractions. And since they say multiple... some may be yawners and could eek out one real headliner attraction from this year's investments along with other supporting attractions.
Oh well
hokielutz
Well-Known Member
It was closed a few months back. It had been talked about for a while. Also the queues for it had been dreadfully short, so it was a waste of real-estate. Maybe this area will be retrofitted to be a Simpson's attraction... similar to the Simpson's driving game that was out a few years back.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
agreed...and they don't say what, if any, of this money is going to Universal Studios Hollywood (I hope they plan on investing SOMETHING there). You certainly can't build a new Harry Potter land on $120m minus normal yearly expenditures--the best you could do is retheme The Lost Continent, and I find it hard to believe J.K. Rowling would be okay with that.
Glad to see an effort from Universal, but after 8 years of nothing at IoA, this isn't enough.
hokielutz
Well-Known Member
While I agree a reinvestment in themselves is the proper course of action, I'm not sure this will be a one-time cure for them. They will need to look at reinvestment in the parks over a good period of time for refurbishing the Univ Studios attractions that are looking a little worn down. BTTF closing and retheming/retrofitting is a start.
Also, Disney seems to be focusing now, more than the past on the refurbishments and upkeeps of their current crop of rides. Some of these refurbishments will lead to new rides... like the upcoming Toy Story that replaces WWTBAM show.
executivechef
New Member
Back to the Future was closed during the last week of March.
CTXRover
Well-Known Member
I'm glad to see Universal reinvesting in their parks after years of relatively nothing. I'm curious to see what this investment will bring. Hopefully it is something amazing, which would be good for guests but also to insure that Disney doesn't get too comfortable again with being the unquestionable leader in Orlando. After years of UO watching Disney build and open several major to medium attractions and shows with other multiple minor redos and refurbs, its about time they reinvest.
I do wonder how far 120 million will go though if it is spread across two parks, among 2+ attractions that may or may not require a major licensing fee for intellectual properties outside the Universal family as current rumors suggest. I also wonder how much if any went into securing Blue Man Group, along with any expenses for construction in and around the studio to convert it to a proper theater for the show (although I imagine BMG was also partly responsible for these costs).
I do wonder how far 120 million will go though if it is spread across two parks, among 2+ attractions that may or may not require a major licensing fee for intellectual properties outside the Universal family as current rumors suggest. I also wonder how much if any went into securing Blue Man Group, along with any expenses for construction in and around the studio to convert it to a proper theater for the show (although I imagine BMG was also partly responsible for these costs).
ImaYoyo
Active Member
The article specifically mentions Universal Orlando would be utilizing the sum listed above.
Testtrack321
Well-Known Member
Sounds more like $120 on EVERYTHING, so by the time the new rides come around they might have only $80 million or less. Think, repairs to all the rides, replacing BTTF, the transformation of the old Nick Studios to Blue Man, etc.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
then hopefully they will budget money toward hollywood, too. That park hasn't seen much in a long time...
Roughly $80m spread b/t two rides will do almost nothing. Even the cheapest of Disney's new rides (not just rethemings) cost at least $40m...$80m might get you two small dark-rides.
Revenge of the Mummy cost $40 million to design and construct. If they had spent an extra $20 million on actually finishing the job it probably would have been one of the most amazing rides ever built. Even in its current state its still a major draw.
So if that gives us a general idea of how Universal spends money, I think there will be some great things ahead. Everest reportedly ran in the $60 - 80 million range, but that includes a giagantic mountain infrastrucrture that frankly Universal does not have the land to build on. And while Everest is beautful to look at, the mountain really does not do all that much for the ride inside. Personally I'd rather have an amazing dark ride inside a warehouse with a nice facade than a good roller coaster inside a giagantic mountain.
You're right. The retrofit of the Country Bears to Winnie the Pooh out at Disneyland cost the company nearly $30 million. That was also a complete waste of company resources. Disney has made some good decisions in the past few years, but frankly they don't spend money all that well. They do however spend a lot of money on their product. Universal hasn't until now.
So if that gives us a general idea of how Universal spends money, I think there will be some great things ahead. Everest reportedly ran in the $60 - 80 million range, but that includes a giagantic mountain infrastrucrture that frankly Universal does not have the land to build on. And while Everest is beautful to look at, the mountain really does not do all that much for the ride inside. Personally I'd rather have an amazing dark ride inside a warehouse with a nice facade than a good roller coaster inside a giagantic mountain.
You're right. The retrofit of the Country Bears to Winnie the Pooh out at Disneyland cost the company nearly $30 million. That was also a complete waste of company resources. Disney has made some good decisions in the past few years, but frankly they don't spend money all that well. They do however spend a lot of money on their product. Universal hasn't until now.
I felt that as Disney is mentioned in the article and Universal is a competitor, it is applicable as Disney news.