I hope it's a good thing, I haven't seen any walkthroughs about it yet. Hoping to get there this December to see it.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Why doesn't WDW add more rides when they do major expansions?
- Thread starter DW Aficionado
- Start date
Queen of the WDW Scene
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Because of the detail themes.
You're forgetting about Gaston's, ETWB, and the Rapunzel bathrooms (an attraction in themselves).
As for HS those attractions had become shells of what they were. Osborne lights used to be on the houses that were taken away for the stunt show. That stunt show ruined the other two attractions.
You're forgetting about Gaston's, ETWB, and the Rapunzel bathrooms (an attraction in themselves).
As for HS those attractions had become shells of what they were. Osborne lights used to be on the houses that were taken away for the stunt show. That stunt show ruined the other two attractions.
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Disney spent the money. They spent it on the rest of the land and the attractions that were built.
This is really it. Disney spends obscene amounts of money on their projects. Significantly more than almost anyone else (though Universe has caught up quite a bit). But they way they are organized, and the dislike of the product at the highest levels, means there is no incentive to do the necessary combination of being confident in their business, understanding the strengths of their premiums and addressing very real inefficiencies in their processes.
123mart123
Active Member
Well said.
Only Disney could spend billions of dollars on a park (DHS)…. to end up with a smaller park with fewer rides and capacity.
And then demolish a 700M portion of the overall investment (starcruiser) within a few years.
Its shameful really.
When it comes to cost analysis, you need to also take into account insurance. I would suspect that insurance on a restaurant is significantly less than a ride.
I think the real problem with the parks is that businesses executives are making most of the decisions. Walt was more of an imagineer than a businessman. I think then need to put imagineers back in control of the parks.
Most of the blue sky projects that imagineers have come up with over the last several years have looked more exciting than anything they have built.
I think the real problem with the parks is that businesses executives are making most of the decisions. Walt was more of an imagineer than a businessman. I think then need to put imagineers back in control of the parks.
Most of the blue sky projects that imagineers have come up with over the last several years have looked more exciting than anything they have built.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
The answer to this is easy. MONEY.
Besides that, look at EPCOT. They messed up this renovation and in my opinion its a net loss. (unless you like a lot if trees and landscaping)
Also - No matter what the offerings are at WDW, folks show up. Yes, I know technically attendance is down, but they are making MORE MONEY. That's all that matters to them.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Imagineers don't get to decide how many rides get built, that get's determined higher up in management. I think it all comes down to cost. Rides are expensive to build, and add to the day to day operating costs of the park. They also don't generate direct revenue like a restaurant or shop so you only want to build just enough to keep people coming back to the park.
Ayla
Well-Known Member
Bathrooms are not attractions.
Poor Rapunzel, other princesses get rides and attractions. She gets a toilet. What does Disney really think about her?Bathrooms are not attractions.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Insurance isn’t really an issue.
Imagineers have never been in charge of the parks.
Blue Sky always looks more exciting for almost every project everywhere. It’s completely ungrounded, which is why it’s called Blue Sky.
Just another privileged white chick.
Twirlnhurl
Well-Known Member
We can talk about the quality of the specific changes to DHS, but even if DHS's expansions have the same capacity than what they replaced, it is impossible to deny that the new capacity is far better utilized than it was before.
Great Movie Ride is a great example here. I know a lot of people loved it, but it usually ran at less than half capacity. Even after the TCM refresh, it was still very common for that attraction to operate with only a single vehicle dispatching at a time. So even though MMRR has a similar theoretical capacity to GMR, MMRR functionally has twice the capacity (and the demand to use it!)
Backlot Tour used to close at dusk, and would be a walk on most days. Nothing is Star Wars Galaxy's Edge is a walk on ever.
Osborne Lights packed Streets of America from 5 pm to 10 pm for eight weeks a year. Rise of the Resistance has the second longest average wait in the park, after Slinky Dog Dash, which was built over a space used for Lights Motors Action, which ran three half-full shows a day.
I wish Disney would build more rides. But if you want examples of subtraction by replacement, DHS is not where you are going to convince people. Point instead to Imagination or Harmonious at Epcot. (The jury is out on Tina's Bayou Adventure... Splash Mountain is a really big set of shoes to fill.)
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
you can thank Uni for this when they opened Harry Potter world and it was massively successful... since then everything "must be" a super themed land (apparently) and therefore more $ goes into the land than in more rides
personally I'd rather see more themed resorts/rooms/sections or restaurants
personally I'd rather see more themed resorts/rooms/sections or restaurants
Raidermatt
Active Member
As to why they seem to think a land consists of 2 attractions, it comes down to how things get approved these days vs. how it happened in the past.
In the past, there were overarching tenets regarding what would be successful in the long run, and obviously most of them originated with Walt. One of these was the belief that the big attractions, your D and E tickets, got people in the door. The A, B and C tickets might not actually cause somebody to make a trip, but they made the experience much more enjoyable. Rather than just going from long line to long line, there were nice, high quality smaller attractions to let people flesh out their day.
Flash forward and the problem becomes these tenets, by and large, no longer exist within Disney. So if you want to build an attraction, you need to tie that attraction directly back to a revenue stream. Whether it's more people through the gate, increased plush sales, or whatever, you need to make that case to executives that really have no understanding of what its like to be an average guest in a Disney park.
So if you pitch them a D and an E ticket with well-known IP, you've got a chance. But ask for some more cash for a couple of A's and B's to go along with it? Good luck. From their pov, why spend extra millions on something that, in their mind, is not going to sell any more tickets. And if you do manage to get a something "extra" included, there's a good chance it will be cut and never see the light of day.
In the past, there were overarching tenets regarding what would be successful in the long run, and obviously most of them originated with Walt. One of these was the belief that the big attractions, your D and E tickets, got people in the door. The A, B and C tickets might not actually cause somebody to make a trip, but they made the experience much more enjoyable. Rather than just going from long line to long line, there were nice, high quality smaller attractions to let people flesh out their day.
Flash forward and the problem becomes these tenets, by and large, no longer exist within Disney. So if you want to build an attraction, you need to tie that attraction directly back to a revenue stream. Whether it's more people through the gate, increased plush sales, or whatever, you need to make that case to executives that really have no understanding of what its like to be an average guest in a Disney park.
So if you pitch them a D and an E ticket with well-known IP, you've got a chance. But ask for some more cash for a couple of A's and B's to go along with it? Good luck. From their pov, why spend extra millions on something that, in their mind, is not going to sell any more tickets. And if you do manage to get a something "extra" included, there's a good chance it will be cut and never see the light of day.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
This implies that the size of expansions has changed. I don't believe there has even been a time when a single park expansion included more then 2 or 3 new rides.
yensid1967
Well-Known Member
I don't have a problem with the Epcot 'garden', what I would like to know is "Why does it take Disney 4+ YEARS to build ONE attraction? While its taking Universal to BUILD AN ENTIRE THEME PARK IN 5 YEARS!?
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Because Universal can see the untapped market. Every person who goes to Disney World but not Universal is an untapped customer. They have a lot of incentive to keep expanding.
JediMasterMatt
Well-Known Member
If WDW wanted to add more attractions that guests could experience they would.
The sad fact is they don't want more. They are content with maintaining the status quo and have instead opted for optimizing the maximum amount of profit per guest they can extract. Virtually every move they have made over the last 2 decades has reinforced this. They are content with slowing guests down and making sure they need multiple days on site to come close to experiencing enough to be satisfied. Squeeze as much juice from the fruit as possible.
The entire crowd steering MM+ and its offshoots were the crossroads between fixing the underlying guest to attraction capacity concerns. The decision was made and we are still living in that world.
The real question of why there is this mindset can be expressed in the following:
- First and foremost, the reason why more and more attractions haven't been lavished on WDW is because there has been compelling evidence (well, up until very recently) that they don't have to spend much of anything to keep occupancy high and capital expenditures on expansion somewhat low. That reason is that despite curtailing expansion and throttling back the quality of expenses, attendance has continued to rise. So, in this aspect the reason why is partially - US. We, along with all of the others that flock to the resort, have continued to vote with our wallets and continue to show up. (I'm just as guilty as the next person).
- That still doesn't address the other elephant the room, which is why wouldn't TDO want to simply increase capacity and as a byproduct increase guest satisfaction to the point where more demand is there? After all, "more rides when they expand" is all about satisfying the supply vs. demand equation. The underlying issue there is also something they may have (especially now) evidence to support their mindset. The WDW resort is a liability that is a risk whenever there is a downturn in travel. For the WDW resort to be profitable, the parks need the hotels to be full. Unlike its west coast sister, WDW needs to pull in guests that have to travel to reach it. DLR can be profitable with day trippers filling its parks (granted, not as profitable as it is when the resorts are full as well). Because there are so many resorts on property at the World, there is always a greater risk associated with large expenditures if people stop traveling.
So, those 2 points are a very simple way of expressing the underlying complex problem with WDW's blessing of size that can often leave the parks feeling anemic when it comes to the quantity of things to do. WDW has plenty of space to put things for people to do; but, is content with maintaining roughly the same guest to attraction balance (yes, that's even counting meet-and-greets as attractions as WDW does). DLR has real issues with not having enough space to put people and is always looking for ways to get more people into their parks which means more attractions or physical expansion of the park's internal size (SWL or Disneyland Forward).
Will things change in Orlando? I hope so. At the very least, they realize that something has to be done with the Magic Kingdom in dealing with the reality that people are always wanting to spend time in the castle park. Expanding the footprint with the Beyond Thunder project would allow more people in the gate. The question becomes will that expansion provide a pressure relief valve of having many more attractions or will it continue the status quo? I'm not so optimistic on that front. After all, this is the same place that killed Beastly Transport for GE not because of the initial outlay of cost; but, not wanting to pay for the ongoing staffing and maintenance for what was perceived as a non-headliner attraction.
If we are locked into this mindset of treading water, then real fix for WDW is trimming all the fat at this point. If we can have net gains in terms of attractions, then pruning those that aren't pulling their weight and plussing them into something that is not only high capacity (think Omnimovers/boats/Kuka RoboCoaster) is what is needed. The sad truth is the WDW of today needs EPCOT Center of the 90's more than ever. Had its attractions been plussed with enhancements along the way, it would consume the crowds the resort sees at this time. It does serve as a valuable lesson though. You can neglect taking any action for so long that you let someone come in and try to sell you a "magic bean" in virtual crowd steering as a way of trying to force guests to ride attractions... that they already have decided they didn't want to wait in line for. Getting a quick return time on a bad attraction may give a modicum of satisfaction; but, at the end of the day - that guest leaves the resort having experienced less value.
Perhaps someday, the resort will offer 4 parks filled with compelling reasons why not to be in the Magic Kingdom.
The sad fact is they don't want more. They are content with maintaining the status quo and have instead opted for optimizing the maximum amount of profit per guest they can extract. Virtually every move they have made over the last 2 decades has reinforced this. They are content with slowing guests down and making sure they need multiple days on site to come close to experiencing enough to be satisfied. Squeeze as much juice from the fruit as possible.
The entire crowd steering MM+ and its offshoots were the crossroads between fixing the underlying guest to attraction capacity concerns. The decision was made and we are still living in that world.
The real question of why there is this mindset can be expressed in the following:
- First and foremost, the reason why more and more attractions haven't been lavished on WDW is because there has been compelling evidence (well, up until very recently) that they don't have to spend much of anything to keep occupancy high and capital expenditures on expansion somewhat low. That reason is that despite curtailing expansion and throttling back the quality of expenses, attendance has continued to rise. So, in this aspect the reason why is partially - US. We, along with all of the others that flock to the resort, have continued to vote with our wallets and continue to show up. (I'm just as guilty as the next person).
- That still doesn't address the other elephant the room, which is why wouldn't TDO want to simply increase capacity and as a byproduct increase guest satisfaction to the point where more demand is there? After all, "more rides when they expand" is all about satisfying the supply vs. demand equation. The underlying issue there is also something they may have (especially now) evidence to support their mindset. The WDW resort is a liability that is a risk whenever there is a downturn in travel. For the WDW resort to be profitable, the parks need the hotels to be full. Unlike its west coast sister, WDW needs to pull in guests that have to travel to reach it. DLR can be profitable with day trippers filling its parks (granted, not as profitable as it is when the resorts are full as well). Because there are so many resorts on property at the World, there is always a greater risk associated with large expenditures if people stop traveling.
So, those 2 points are a very simple way of expressing the underlying complex problem with WDW's blessing of size that can often leave the parks feeling anemic when it comes to the quantity of things to do. WDW has plenty of space to put things for people to do; but, is content with maintaining roughly the same guest to attraction balance (yes, that's even counting meet-and-greets as attractions as WDW does). DLR has real issues with not having enough space to put people and is always looking for ways to get more people into their parks which means more attractions or physical expansion of the park's internal size (SWL or Disneyland Forward).
Will things change in Orlando? I hope so. At the very least, they realize that something has to be done with the Magic Kingdom in dealing with the reality that people are always wanting to spend time in the castle park. Expanding the footprint with the Beyond Thunder project would allow more people in the gate. The question becomes will that expansion provide a pressure relief valve of having many more attractions or will it continue the status quo? I'm not so optimistic on that front. After all, this is the same place that killed Beastly Transport for GE not because of the initial outlay of cost; but, not wanting to pay for the ongoing staffing and maintenance for what was perceived as a non-headliner attraction.
If we are locked into this mindset of treading water, then real fix for WDW is trimming all the fat at this point. If we can have net gains in terms of attractions, then pruning those that aren't pulling their weight and plussing them into something that is not only high capacity (think Omnimovers/boats/Kuka RoboCoaster) is what is needed. The sad truth is the WDW of today needs EPCOT Center of the 90's more than ever. Had its attractions been plussed with enhancements along the way, it would consume the crowds the resort sees at this time. It does serve as a valuable lesson though. You can neglect taking any action for so long that you let someone come in and try to sell you a "magic bean" in virtual crowd steering as a way of trying to force guests to ride attractions... that they already have decided they didn't want to wait in line for. Getting a quick return time on a bad attraction may give a modicum of satisfaction; but, at the end of the day - that guest leaves the resort having experienced less value.
Perhaps someday, the resort will offer 4 parks filled with compelling reasons why not to be in the Magic Kingdom.