Upcoming/Rumored Projects

[Tom]

Ever heard the story of Daddy's Day and Walt sitting watching his girls ride the carousel at Griffith Park? The Disney theme parks are not supposed to be about watching little kids have fun.

You can only create so many rides that EVERYONE in the family can ride. Disney has done a spectacular job of creating parks (namely their Magic Kingdoms) that have a surplus of family attractions. But there are demographics - young, teen and older - that still need something just for them.

 

[doctornick]

Wrong. For the under 3 crowd, it is brilliant.

For a young child, it's great. For an adult, it's hilarious in how painfully slow it is. My wife and I love to joke about the ride, especially how you get seat belted in.

That said, it's really not a bad ride. It's a cute concept and captures the essence of Heimleich.

Ever heard the story of Daddy's Day and Walt sitting watching his girls ride the carousel at Griffith Park? The Disney theme parks are not supposed to be about watching little kids have fun.

What is stopping an adult from riding it?

 

[JimboJones123]

You can only create so many rides that EVERYONE in the family can ride. Disney has done a spectacular job of creating parks (namely their Magic Kingdoms) that have a surplus of family attractions. But there are demographics - young, teen and older - that still need something just for them.

How many 3 year olds can go on Rock & Roller Coaster? Should it be leveled too? Variety is great at the parks for all ages.

We went to Cedar Point a month ago, and after 5 coasters, we had our fill and were done for the day.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

How many 3 year olds can go on Rock & Roller Coaster? Should it be leveled too? Variety is great at the parks for all ages.

We went to Cedar Point a month ago, and after 5 coasters, we had our fill and were done for the day.

Really? CP has 72 rides. Only 16 are coasters. That's 56 non-coaster rides. Maybe if they built some "Disney-style" benches they may someday, in the far off distant future, be a full day park.

 

[JimboJones123]

We rode a dozen other rides, but were so shaken uo after the coasters we were done.

 

[ChrisM]

We rode a dozen other rides, but were so shaken uo after the coasters we were done.

CP coasters are no joke, that's for sure.

I haven't been in (jeez) 15 years but even fresh out of college, after a few spins on Raptor, Magnum, Mean Streak, and Mantis I was done for the day and even opted out of dinner.

 

[JimboJones123]

Mantis was the worst. The new Gatekeeper was amazing.

 

[cheezbat]

Really? CP has 72 rides. Only 16 are coasters. That's 56 non-coaster rides. Maybe if they built some "Disney-style" benches they may someday, in the far off distant future, be a full day park.

No no no...what they need are princess meet n greets and highly themed bathrooms. That'll do it.

 

[PeterAlt]

At this rate, Marvel Land will happen at WDW before Avatar Land. Any objections to this statement is exactly my point.

 

[wserratore1963]

I'm sure this was posted previously but I hope it's all still in the works.

http://www.slashfilm.com/leaked-avatar-land-blueprints-reveal-possible-3d-simulator-and-water-ride/

 

[Tom]

I'm sure this was posted previously but I hope it's all still in the works.

http://www.slashfilm.com/leaked-avatar-land-blueprints-reveal-possible-3d-simulator-and-water-ride/

Yes, those same plans were leaked here, and on other Disney sites, last year. There has not been any solid information that this, or any other version, is being worked on at this time.

 

[FlaMel]

Ever heard the story of Daddy's Day and Walt sitting watching his girls ride the carousel at Griffith Park? The Disney theme parks are not supposed to be about watching little kids have fun.

Lazyboy, I interpret that story a little differently. My take away is that Walt wanted to create a safe, clean environment that had elements that were geared to all ages. It is a goal to create as many experiences as possible that can be enjoyed by all, but you have to have a few that appeal to select demographics. Little kids need some dedicated, little kid geared attractions. These types of attractions satisfy both the child and the child's parents. That's pretty good family appeal, in my book.

 

[Ginzuishou]

How many 3 year olds can go on Rock & Roller Coaster? Should it be leveled too? Variety is great at the parks for all ages.

We went to Cedar Point a month ago, and after 5 coasters, we had our fill and were done for the day.

You're telling me. That park is scary. I cheered inside when the one coaster broke down while I was in line. Can't believe I went on that 400 foot coaster though, what a rush.

 

[danlb_2000]

Lazyboy, I interpret that story a little differently. My take away is that Walt wanted to create a safe, clean environment that had elements that were geared to all ages. It is a goal to create as many experiences as possible that can be enjoyed by all, but you have to have a few that appeal to select demographics. Little kids need some dedicated, little kid geared attractions. These types of attractions satisfy both the child and the child's parents. That's pretty good family appeal, in my book.

This is backed up by the fact that one of the original rides built in Disneyland was a carosuel.

 

[RadioHead]

So does anyone want to elaborate as to why Disney is playing it "safe" so to speak when it comes to new attractions?

Is it because of the movie bombs (The Long Ranger, Cars 2, Monster University, hardly set the box office on fire)?

Is it because Disney is spending to much on acquiring new properties (like Lucas), thus leaving them less spending money for theme parks, and the attractions?

Is it because they've become complacent with there attendance numbers (there has been no declines correct?) and thus see no need to drastically bring the families in (considering families will come in every day, every year, for the next 100's of years, regardless if they add new rides. Just keep the park clean, safe, and keep them [mechanically] updated and they will come in droves)

I'm just generally curious because Disney itself is an Empire.

They surely have the money to do whatever they want, so I'm kind of getting the hint that unless the parks themselves see drastic attendance decline, Disney won't see the need to do drastic measures (when it comes to adding new attractions).

The way I see it, Disney is fine with where there parks are at, and know at the end of the day the only one who wants these constant fresh new attractions are the hardcore Disney fanatics who go every year during summer (or are season pass holders).

Surely those "fans" represent a tiny percentage of what they consider the bulk of Disney visitors (first timers, who will probably go to Disney World once or twice in the lives. Probably from some foreign country like China, or Italy, or Canada).

Thus, at the end of the day, as long as Disney is still making money from there theme parks, and there attendance rates are on the uptick, than what there currently doing should be considered hella alot..unfortunately.

 

[Tom]

So does anyone want to elaborate as to why Disney is playing it "safe" so to speak when it comes to new attractions?

Is it because of the movie bombs (The Long Ranger, Cars 2, Monster University, hardly set the box office on fire)?

Is it because Disney is spending to much on acquiring new properties (like Lucas), thus leaving them less spending money for theme parks, and the attractions?

Is it because they've become complacent with there attendance numbers (there has been no declines correct?) and thus see no need to drastically bring the families in (considering families will come in every day, every year, for the next 100's of years, regardless if they add new rides. Just keep the park clean, safe, and keep them [mechanically] updated and they will come in droves)

I'm just generally curious because Disney itself is an Empire.

They surely have the money to do whatever they want, so I'm kind of getting the hint that unless the parks themselves see drastic attendance decline, Disney won't see the need to do drastic measures (when it comes to adding new attractions).

The way I see it, Disney is fine with where there parks are at, and know at the end of the day the only one who wants these constant fresh new attractions are the hardcore Disney fanatics who go every year during summer (or are season pass holders).

Surely those "fans" represent a tiny percentage of what they consider the bulk of Disney visitors (first timers, who will probably go to Disney World once or twice in the lives. Probably from some foreign country like China, or Italy, or Canada).

Thus, at the end of the day, as long as Disney is still making money from there theme parks, and there attendance rates are on the uptick, than what there currently doing should be considered hella alot..unfortunately.

I read a fairly decent article a while back on mice chat. Doesn't completely answer your question, but it does a good job explaining how stuff works for those of us who aren't accounting majors.

 

[PeterAlt]

So does anyone want to elaborate as to why Disney is playing it "safe" so to speak when it comes to new attractions?

Is it because of the movie bombs (The Long Ranger, Cars 2, Monster University, hardly set the box office on fire)?

Is it because Disney is spending to much on acquiring new properties (like Lucas), thus leaving them less spending money for theme parks, and the attractions?

Is it because they've become complacent with there attendance numbers (there has been no declines correct?) and thus see no need to drastically bring the families in (considering families will come in every day, every year, for the next 100's of years, regardless if they add new rides. Just keep the park clean, safe, and keep them [mechanically] updated and they will come in droves)

I'm just generally curious because Disney itself is an Empire.

They surely have the money to do whatever they want, so I'm kind of getting the hint that unless the parks themselves see drastic attendance decline, Disney won't see the need to do drastic measures (when it comes to adding new attractions).

The way I see it, Disney is fine with where there parks are at, and know at the end of the day the only one who wants these constant fresh new attractions are the hardcore Disney fanatics who go every year during summer (or are season pass holders).

Surely those "fans" represent a tiny percentage of what they consider the bulk of Disney visitors (first timers, who will probably go to Disney World once or twice in the lives. Probably from some foreign country like China, or Italy, or Canada).

Thus, at the end of the day, as long as Disney is still making money from there theme parks, and there attendance rates are on the uptick, than what there currently doing should be considered hella alot..unfortunately.

Here's what's happening. From a bean counter's point of view, the company's spending is out of control. The books give that appearance. For State-side parks, add up all the billions they poured into DCA 2.0 ($1.3 billion), FLE (half-billion), NextGen at WDW ($1.5 billion), Disney Vacation Resorts mostly at WDW (billions), Art of Aninmation Resort, and the two new cruise ships ($2 billion) fall under the resorts account. Bob Iger then has to explain the spending to the shareholders in which he has chosen the easy way out, saying simply that this round of spending was a necessary knee-jerk reaction to fix problems and that spending levels will get back into lower controllerable levels once those projects have concluded.

If Iger was smart, he would break down the spending in a different way so that it doesn't look as bad. For example, now, the spending is itemized simply as capital expense. The itemization should be broken down into categories such as (a) new attractions, (b) refurbishments, (c) logistics and management, (d) new businesses, and so on. It's not fair that NextGen (logistics) and Disney Vacation Resort unit construction (new business) spending is seen on the account sheet in the same column as DCA 2.0. Now, add all of Iger's acquisitions and a virtual blank check he's been handing out to the film division, that's a lot of "out of control" spending and explaining he has to do!

He could either stop his mergers and acquisition spree, put his foot down on studio spending, or apply the spending breaks to the resorts divisions in order to weasel out of this one and keep his job to 2016 (which he is now seeking to do). Of course, he choose the third option. Eisner had one really big acquistion during his term (ABC) and several smaller ones (failed deals such as Pixar and Henson are testimate on his desire to slow down acquisition spending). He never gave the studio division a blank check, and at times even closing or cutting the studio back (2D animation for example). This is how he was able to pay for the rapid expansion of WDW, adding both resorts and attractions at a feverish pace non-stop for twenty years from 1986 to 2006.

 

[RSoxNo1]

So does anyone want to elaborate as to why Disney is playing it "safe" so to speak when it comes to new attractions?

It's because they're a large company that's risk averse.

 

[bigeternity]

You get good things with an acquisition, as well as the not so good things.

 

[friedriches]

I don't think it's fair to say that the box office side of things have been bombs, evidence here: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/forg...tudio-bank-1-billion-domestic-2013-38487.html

Also, Monsters U pulled in $225 mil. domestic in three weeks- hardly a bomb.

I bet that when Shanghai opens in a few years, people won't be saying that the Parks division is playing it safe. Much of the fan base is used to something wholly new every decade, and it has been a while since they've opened a new park that brought something new (TDS, or arguably HKDL). Fans are getting stir-crazy, as they want something more dramatic than small refurbishments or a new ride every so often.

Could they be bigger, better changes? Sure. But it's going to take decades to see the kind of change that people want. In the meantime, the changes that are happening people will tear apart.