Universal will spend $120M on attractions

[PKD]

Just found this new story online. Interesting.

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/BUSINESS/704050341/1003

The Orlando Sentinel did an artical regarding DAK's visitors going up due to EE and they mentioned in there about Universal spending the extra money for 2007/2008.

 

[Testtrack321]

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.

Utter BS. Eisner, press releases, etc, state that Everest is north of the $100 million dollar figure, with a large amount spent on the generally infastructure of the ride that was needed.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Exactly...Everest is one of the few cases where Disney decided to share the cost with us, and it sure isn't $60-80m.

 

[Snapper Bean]

I'm a huge Disney fan but I go to Universal Parks as well. My own opinion is that the Mummy Coaster is a huge success as an attraction and from a "bang for the buck" standpoint. I think Everest is a better overall attraction but its not twice as good by a longshot. If you compare what Universal spent to do Mummy for what Disney paid for Mission Space, Universal looks like the genius. I suspect you'll see at least one thrill type ride and maybe one interactive but less thrilling type ride for this 120M.

Snapper Bean

 

[pheneix]

Utter BS. Eisner, press releases, etc, state that Everest is north of the $100 million dollar figure

Link me please.

 

[haveyoumetmark]

An article from Forbes suggests that the cost is at least $100 million...

Get this: in the middle of sun-drenched Orlando, Fla. The Walt Disney Co. is erecting a 200-foot-high replica of snow-covered Mount Everest. It's a showcase attraction scheduled to open in 2006 at Disney's Animal Kingdom theme park. The premise: Visitors board an old mountain railway headed to the foot of Mount Everest. As the train climbs higher into "the Himalayas," it passes thick bamboo forests, thundering waterfalls and shimmering glacier fields. But the track ends unexpectedly in a gnarled mass of twisted metal. Suddenly the train begins racing forward and backward through caverns and icy canyons until riders come face to face with a giant hairy creature--the mythical yeti.

It's enough to scare the wits out of Don W. Goodman, who has the job of ensuring that the $100 million roller coaster is finished on time--and on budget. It is a logistical nightmare: Hundreds of workers from independent contractors must simultaneously build the roller coaster and the mountain that contains it. They will erect 1,200 tons of steel and install four acres of rockwork.

http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1027/086_print.html

Most of what I've heard from people that analyze these types of things appeared to be just south of $200 million.

 

[sknydave]

I prefer to look at the end result, rather than look at the budget.

 

[mkepcotmgmak]

I wouldn't exactly consider 2.5 percent to be a "major decrease."

I'm happy to see they are going to shell out more money for new attractions.

when you are dealing with 7 digit numbers - 2.5 percent is huge!

 

[sknydave]

200,000 people is a big number, but in the grand scheme of things I don't think 200k is the end of the world when you're talking about over 10 million visitors to the parks.

 

[pheneix]

Earlier this decade the Universal parks in Orlando combined for nearly 14 million guests. They probably want those millions of guests who stopped visiting to come back.

 

[mkepcotmgmak]

200,000 people is a big number, but in the grand scheme of things I don't think 200k is the end of the world when you're talking about over 10 million visitors to the parks.

250K people with park admission alone is 15-17Million plus the money on property resorts, food, gifts, etc. Those 250K visitors could be the money that pays for new attractions over a 5 year period...

 

[Connor002]

Unlike some Disney-fans here, I'm going to go out on a limb and give Universal a little love lookaroun). Hopefully they use any attraction money well.

 

[jmvd20]

I hope that Universal builds some of the best rides around with the money they have available, all that will do is force Disney to invest more at their parks and keep pushing the envelope for cutting edge rides and technology. As Disney fans we should all want Universal to grow, it will only force WDW to stay on top of things.

 

[unkadug]

I hope that Universal builds some of the best rides around with the money they have available, all that will do is force Disney to invest more at their parks and keep pushing the envelope for cutting edge rides and technology. As Disney fans we should all want Universal to grow, it will only force WDW to stay on top of things.

So true.

The two parks are in a symbiotic relationship to a degree. Especially when it comes to technology.

 

[dxwwf3]

I don't think that there has ever been another park in history that NEEDS something new quite like IOA does right now. I understand they built the park with a ton of E-ticket type attractions, but you've got to add new things somehow. I went to IOA every year up until about 2 years ago and I won't be back until the next major attraction opens.

USF did need some of the changes it has recieved in the past few years, but I find it extremely disapointing that BTTF had to close before IOA got it's first post opening major attraction.

 

[Dr Banner]

Seeing as though Revenge of the Mummy only cost $40 million there is plenty of potential for great attractions here. Don't forget aswell the rumoured Harry Potter ride wouldn't open until 2008/2009 so there would be additional funding over the next few years.

 

[sknydave]

250K people with park admission alone is 15-17Million plus the money on property resorts, food, gifts, etc. Those 250K visitors could be the money that pays for new attractions over a 5 year period...

Again, compared to 856 million dollars (estimated with the 10.7 million visitors quoted in the article * average 80 dollars spent for entry to the parks.) It's not the end of the world, especially considering how one or two new attractions could easily bring back the 2.5 percent of visitors and then some.

 

[JROK]

Sounds like two new attractions, one at each park, plus Blue Man Group (which opens in two months)... We already know that one of the attractions will be replacing BTTF in 2008, so that leaves us with FINALLY a new attraction at IOA! About time... Maybe the Harry Potter?

But yes, ROTM cost $40M, Everest cost $100M, but a lot of the cost went into constructing the mountain and sending Joe and other Imagineers to Tibet for a few months... I think Universal could easily build two respectable attractions for $50-60M each.

Does anybody know how much MiB cost?

 

[sknydave]

Universal will also be saving a bit of change since they will be using the same building BTTF was in. I'm very much looking forward to something new in IOA!

Not sure how much MIB cost to build.

 

[AndyMagic]

Does anybody know how much MiB cost?

I believe it was in the 60 - 75 million range. This makes sense because they had to build that enormous building while Mummy was a retro-fit. Also, we have to remember that this $120 million figure is for 2007 construction and investment only. The number probably covers the entire cost of the Back to the Future replacement but only a portion of the new IOA ride (most likely Potter) because that will be built over the course of 2 years with an opening in late 2008/early 2009. Everest's eventual total cost was spread out over a few years of investment too.