Why so long?

[dizneyfreak]

Well compared to Universal, Disney is pretty slow to make new attractions. Look at Shrek and PhilharMagic. Alfred Hitchcock shut down back in early January of 2003. Legend of the Lion King closed way back in Febuary of 2002. PhilharMagic had almost a year head start on Shrek, yet Shrek is still going to open before PhilharMagic. June 12th is the expected opening for Shrek. All we get from Disney is a PhilharMagic gift shop. It just doesn't make any sense that it takes Disney an extra year than Universal to create a 3D show. Thats just my $.02 on the issue.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Well, i think the difference is in the theming and the quene area as well as the AA and advanced tech and all that. It seems that Disney tears out everything and redoes most everything from scratch rather then just repaint and rehash old stuff.

I'll own up to reading Jim Hill's columns (Yeah, i know how popular he is here, but i'm making a point) and taking them with the grain of salt but some of his recent stuff on Universal and the Jimmy Newtron ride give some insight to how Universal changes a ride so fast. Article

In this lovely article, Hill mentions that at Universal <i> "minimal changes have been made to these areas. A new paint job here, a few new atmospheric props there. But beyond that, these spaces are virtually unchanged." </i>

So basically.... it seems that Disney goes the whole 10 yards to redo or install a new ride, whereas Universal does not. While obviously there's debate to the wisdom of this, such as the length of time it takes to install a new attraction. I think overall the major Disney rides (SM, PotC) keep people comming back <i> for 30 years</i> because of this theming and the entire experience.

I figure, if you're going to be stuck in line... entertain me (Although that TT music has got to go, too repetative) Otherwise i'm going to get bored quick.


As for speed? Maybe its because Shrek just might not have the longevity of Mickey Mouse. Maybe in 5 years people will have lost interes and moved onto the next animated "big thing" that is supposed to rival Mickey. Maybe it will be sooner, who knows. No matter how funny it is and how many in-jokes and shots at Disney are in Shrek's 3D film, i dont see it lasting.

My $.11

 

[dizneyfreak]

What Universal did for Jimmy Neutron was just stick a new movie in there, add some paint, and re-adjust the simluators, but its still another great new ride. As for Shrek and PhilharMagic, both of the buildings had to be renovated. Seating had to be added in both buildings. As for the Hill article, it doesn't mention anything about Shrek though. Also I bet if you went and asked 100 parents and their kids of the general public and not us Disney enthusiasts (did that make any sence? :veryconfu ) if they would rather see a new 3D movie about Shrek or about Mickey Mouse, I would predict that prolly more than 85% would pick Shrek right now.

 

[SpongeScott]

Originally posted by MouseMadness
Luckily, I am not a basketball fan... get back to me when it's college football season. We'll talk.

GO BIG BLUE!! HAIL TO THE VICTORS!!

*please go back to the thread discussion now*

 

[WDWspider]

Let me take a different approach...

perhaps we know so early.

Since the Internet infiltration of the late 90's, there is basically nothing kept secret anymore, so perhaps most rides took around the same time frame to build before, but we never really knew about them unless we were either on the inside, or saw construction developing. I say, it's not really taking that long, we just know things are coming a lot sooner than we use to, even the Mummy ride is taking some time to build (although a totally new building and landscaping was not necessary) but Universal shielded people from the time frame by presenting two new attractions. Perhaps some smaller additions will spring up in the AK before EE arrives (I hope so anyway).

 

[Testtrack321]

Lets go with what Disney has to do to build EE...

-Clear land
-pour foundation
-build 200ft mountain
-install track
-test track (since it uses new technology, it will need to be tested a lot)
-plant plants
-insert animal exhibits
-theme
-build deserted town

At Alton Towers....

-Clear land
-pour foundation
-install track
-test track
-theme (if necessary)

And for the Mummy...
-Clear building
-install track
-test track
-install themeing

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by dizneyfreak
What Universal did for Jimmy Neutron was just stick a new movie in there, add some paint, and re-adjust the simluators, but its still another great new ride. As for Shrek and PhilharMagic, both of the buildings had to be renovated. Seating had to be added in both buildings. As for the Hill article, it doesn't mention anything about Shrek though. Also I bet if you went and asked 100 parents and their kids of the general public and not us Disney enthusiasts (did that make any sence? :veryconfu ) if they would rather see a new 3D movie about Shrek or about Mickey Mouse, I would predict that prolly more than 85% would pick Shrek right now.

Although this probably doesn't explain why it is taking SO much longer to build Philarmagic, it does offer a possible explanation. From what I understand, the theater Shrek is being put into was already set up for a 3D show since Hitchcock used this room for a 3D show (??? I visited this once a long time ago and don't remember it...this is what I've read). Thus, the ROOM for a projector (a new projector was probably added), the size of the theater, the WALL for a screen (a new screen was probably added, but in the same place and probably the same size), etc. were already there. New themeing, new motion seating etc. turned a theater designed for a 3D show into ANOTHER 3D show.

Philarharmagic, on the other hand, is going into a theater NOT designed for a 3D show of its scale. Thus, the "stage" for the Legend of the Lion King needed to be removed. The wall between the Lion king's pre-show and the actual "old" theater needed to be removed to make the much "larger" theater that Philharmagic will be in. A wall and the "largest screen ever for a 3D show" needed to be built and installed along with probably a new projector room to allow the film to be shown on the enormous screen. A new theme to the theater, seats that are uniquely shaped like violins, animatronics and their wiring needed to be installed, among other effects.

Thus, the actual replacement of the shows in the two theaters was actually a little more complex for Philharmagic since it wasn't a "home" to a 3D show of its size before. Whether that takes a year more, I don't know. But it definetly suggests why it would take longer than Shrek.

Shrek may have a long longevity, but no one knows that for sure right now. He may be "hot" for 5+ years and then could be yesterday's old news. However, Mickey and Donald have already proven their longevity. Not to mention the film will take us through Disney's famous films that also have shown their longevity and popularity. I know I am more excited for Mickey's new show than Shrek's :lol: Then again, I am a Disney enthusiast.

 

[WDWspider]

I've read that Shrek will incorporate interactive seats now sorta like Bug's Life and use Digital technologies more advanced than those used in Episode II, therefore new projectors and perhaps a new screen. I'm not sure that much was actually salvaged in the old hitchcock building. Just commenting, not saying anything else. Also note that prior to Legend of the Lion King, there was a 3D movie in that building - Magic Journeys I think.

 

[PhotoDave219]

While i liked Shrek, i'm not going to drop 2 grand to travel to Universal. However.... I <i>will</i> drop 2 grand to go to WDW.

I just hope Philharmagic has its soft opening come mid-september.

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by spider-man
Also note that prior to Legend of the Lion King, there was a 3D movie in that building - Magic Journeys I think.

I vaguely remember reading about that. I unfortunately don't think I ever saw that (unless I saw it as a baby, do you know how long ago that was there?)

Either way, I think I am safe to say that Philharmagic's theater will be larger (at least the screen will be :lol: ) than Magic Journeys. Thus, to re-paraphrase my earlier post, Shrek is going into a theater designed for a 3D show of its same scale (meaning actual physical scale: size of theater/screen, etc) while Philharmagic's theater needed to be completely re-designed for a much larger 3D show, not to mention that the theater hasn't been used for a 3D show in a while.

----EDIT-----
Note: I could be wrong on Shrek's theater. If anyone knows that the theater that housed the Hitchcock show is NOT the one being used for Shrek 4D (in other words, the theater's walls were removed and replaced etc. ), let me know I know new seats were added, but did anything else about the physical size of the theater change?

 

[WDWspider]

Originally posted by CTXRover
I vaguely remember reading about that. I unfortunately don't think I ever saw that (unless I saw it as a baby, do you know how long ago that was there?)

Either way, I think I am safe to say that Philharmagic's theater will be larger (at least the screen will be :lol: ) than Magic Journeys. Thus, to re-paraphrase my earlier post, Shrek is going into a theater designed for a 3D show of its same scale (meaning actual physical scale: size of theater/screen, etc) while Philharmagic's theater needed to be completely re-designed for a much larger 3D show, not to mention that the theater hasn't been used for a 3D show in a while.

Didn't mean to imply anything. I do agree with you as to why Philharmagic will take longer, but I do wonder if the same screen in Hitchcock will in fact be used. I also think Shrek will need to be redesigned as a much higher capacity theatre, but I could be wrong.

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by spider-man
Didn't mean to imply anything. I do agree with you as to why Philharmagic will take longer, but I do wonder if the same screen in Hitchcock will in fact be used. I also think Shrek will need to be redesigned as a much higher capacity theatre, but I could be wrong.

I would think the actual screen will be replaced too (could be wrong), but I imagine the size of the screen is what will stay the same. Thus, I would think no change to the wall the screen will be on would be needed.

 

[WDWspider]

Originally posted by CTXRover
I would think the actual screen will be replaced too (could be wrong), but I imagine the size of the screen is what will stay the same. Thus, I would think no change to the wall the screen will be on would be needed.

I'm slow, or it's late. I understand what you mean now.

 

[AndyMagic]

I think what puzzles me the most is how long it is taking Disney to build anything these days. Disney has been building incredibly high-tech themed attractions for years! All of them (Splash Mountain, Tower of Terror, Dinosaur, Indy) have never taken as long as these new crop of attractions. It isn't like Disney took 3 and half years to build all their previous attractions. Lastly, while I could excuse EE for taking as long as it will because it is such a massive project, the fact that Philarhmagic is taking as long as it is doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. The Shrek comparison works as far as I can tell. While Philarhmagic's screen might be larger, Shrek had to install complicated motion based seating. Also, unlike the Hollywood version, the one in Orlando is said to have a highly detailed queue. No matter how you slice it, Philarhmagic is taking far too long. I don't care if the theatre is made from carved marbel, it just doesn't make much sense. My take is that Disney, plain and simple, is taking their time for whatever reason. Shrek is opening June 12th and a quick glance at very recent construction photo's show that they are still working like mad-men both inside and outside the building. It seems like it will be finished only a few weeks before it opens. Either Philharmagic will be completely finished months and months before the opening to allow for a bizzare amount of testing (it is a 3-d movie for goodness sakes) or Disney has hired an elderly couple from Orlando to handle all of their construction.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Originally posted by AndyMagic
I. Either Philharmagic will be completely finished months and months before the opening to allow for a bizzare amount of testing (it is a 3-d movie for goodness sakes) or Disney has hired an elderly couple from Orlando to handle all of their construction.

Or could it be Disney is using the drip feed ploy on new attractions to try and get repeat visitors?

 

[gibsonc]

Originally posted by dizneyfreak
Well compared to Universal, Disney is pretty slow to make new attractions. Look at Shrek and PhilharMagic. Alfred Hitchcock shut down back in early January of 2003. Legend of the Lion King closed way back in Febuary of 2002. PhilharMagic had almost a year head start on Shrek, yet Shrek is still going to open before PhilharMagic. June 12th is the expected opening for Shrek. All we get from Disney is a PhilharMagic gift shop. It just doesn't make any sense that it takes Disney an extra year than Universal to create a 3D show. Thats just my $.02 on the issue.

Not wanting to disagree but I think....

The Alfred Hitchcock attraction was shut well before Jan 2003. It was closed with Shrek construction boards up at the latest during the begining of May 2002 when I was there and I seem to think it had been closed longer than that.

Festival of the Lion King closed on the 23rd Feb 2002 (2 months difference at the most)

Shrek 4D at Universal Hollywood is already open - and has been since the begining of May 2003 (Shrek Orlando isn't due to open until some time in June). which means the 3D film for shrek has been completed for at least 2 months ( it's been open for a month and allowing another month for installation and testing (which I would expect to take longer than a month))

If you assume all of this equals out the 2 month difference in closing of previous attractions then Phillarmagic's opening date is only 3 months behind Shrek in Orlando. Which since Phillarmagic is unique in that the theatre, seats, effects film etc have not been done before (i.e. the exact attration doesn't already exist) then and extra 3 months is perfectly acceptable time difference. Universal will have designed and had manufactured and found the faults and bugs in the attraction when creating the Hollywood version of Shrek so it will be quicker to build a copy in Orlando during the couple of months time difference in the construction of the two Shreks.

Of course I could be totally wrong and have got all the dates mixed up but it makes sense to me.

 

[Sherm00]

Originally posted by AndyMagic
I think what puzzles me the most is how long it is taking Disney to build anything these days. Disney has been building incredibly high-tech themed attractions for years! All of them (Splash Mountain, Tower of Terror, Dinosaur, Indy) have never taken as long as these new crop of attractions. It isn't like Disney took 3 and half years to build all their previous attractions. Lastly, while I could excuse EE for taking as long as it will because it is such a massive project, the fact that Philarhmagic is taking as long as it is doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. The Shrek comparison works as far as I can tell. While Philarhmagic's screen might be larger, Shrek had to install complicated motion based seating. Also, unlike the Hollywood version, the one in Orlando is said to have a highly detailed queue. No matter how you slice it, Philarhmagic is taking far too long. I don't care if the theatre is made from carved marbel, it just doesn't make much sense. My take is that Disney, plain and simple, is taking their time for whatever reason. Shrek is opening June 12th and a quick glance at very recent construction photo's show that they are still working like mad-men both inside and outside the building. It seems like it will be finished only a few weeks before it opens. Either Philharmagic will be completely finished months and months before the opening to allow for a bizzare amount of testing (it is a 3-d movie for goodness sakes) or Disney has hired an elderly couple from Orlando to handle all of their construction.

I think there is a plane and simple answer, MONEY. Universal has VIVENDI and other sponsers to back it. Disney dosn't really have any other funding except disney. and Disney (yes mainly because of management decisions) have been struggleing for mony for the past several years now. and I think that Pressler but alot less enphasis on rides then shopping. Now that pressler is out disney is scrambleing to get new rides into place and realize that they can't do it quickly with the money they have. which is ok, at least disney now is on the right track, so when the economy picks up they may be able to build more rides faster. as far as shreck, I think what they might do is use the one special effect area as part of the queue (yo know the area that guests participate in a hitchcock film. and then they reconstruct the area with the bates motel scene to another theatre and have 2 theatres instead of 1. big theatre.

 

[Dayma]

There is the possibly that they "time" the opening of rides not to conflict with Universal or vice versa. They could also be waiting to "one up them".....just a thought.

 

[AndyMagic]

Originally posted by gibsonc
Not wanting to disagree but I think....

The Alfred Hitchcock attraction was shut well before Jan 2003. It was closed with Shrek construction boards up at the latest during the begining of May 2002 when I was there and I seem to think it had been closed longer than that.

Festival of the Lion King closed on the 23rd Feb 2002 (2 months difference at the most)

Shrek 4D at Universal Hollywood is already open - and has been since the begining of May 2003 (Shrek Orlando isn't due to open until some time in June). which means the 3D film for shrek has been completed for at least 2 months ( it's been open for a month and allowing another month for installation and testing (which I would expect to take longer than a month))

Shrek at USF closed in January 2003. It is taking Universal to 6 months to build Shrek and Disney is taking about 2 years. I don't really understand anything you said in your description of the Shrek in Hollywood and how it relates to the one in USF. The one in Hollywood was open a month sooner because it started construction a month sooner. The two Shrek attractions are taking the same amount of time.

 

[wdwmagic]

Originally posted by AndyMagic
Shrek at USF closed in January 2003. It is taking Universal to 6 months to build Shrek and Disney is taking about 2 years. I don't really understand anything you said in your description of the Shrek in Hollywood and how it relates to the one in USF. The one in Hollywood was open a month sooner because it started construction a month sooner. The two Shrek attractions are taking the same amount of time.

I think the best thing to do is wait and see which attraction is the best, and if the time taken reflects the quality of the outcome. I would be willing to bet that Philharmagic is a better attraciton than Shrek.

Once we can assess them both together, we can then argue about why one took longer than the other.