Disney's Current Approach to Theme Parks

[belloq87]

I disagree. I said it the other day in the UO Expansion thread and I think three dry parks is a magic number, if fully fleshed out. Had Eisner not been so dead-set on beating Universal to having a Studio Park in Orlando, maybe we could’ve had a better planned out park. If they had focused on fleshing out their three parks from there too, they could be in a much better position as far as capacity is concerned for each park and then still be positioning themselves for a potential Forth Park once all were healthy.

Now, if you want talk about Eisner's failure to add to MGM in a timely fashion, despite having concepts ready to go (Muppet Studios, Roger Rabbit, Dick Tracy's Crimestoppers, etc.), we'd certainly be on the same page.

 

[Mad Dog]

I disagree. I said it the other day in the UO Expansion thread and I think three dry parks is a magic number, if fully fleshed out. Had Eisner not been so dead-set on beating Universal to having a Studio Park in Orlando, maybe we could’ve had a better planned out park. If they had focused on fleshing out their three parks from there too, they could be in a much better position as far as capacity is concerned for each park and then still be positioning themselves for a potential Forth Park once all were healthy.

:thumbsup:Yes, I fully agree on the three parks premise, and that's also why I agree Universal should only do a third dry park and no more dry parks after that. Three dry parks; Magic Number

 

[belloq87]

And just to clarify, I do not disagree that Hollywood Studios and Animal Kingdom are still underdeveloped. That ball, however, is now in Iger's court, and he could continue to add to those parks if he wanted to. He should.

I am just not willing to sacrifice the existence of one or the other in the hope that those resources would have gone to making a "better" or "more complete" third gate. Both of those parks now have indispensable features that I would not want to lose.

 

[Nick]

And just to clarify, I do not disagree that Hollywood Studios and Animal Kingdom are still underdeveloped. That ball, however, is now in Iger's court, and he could continue to add to those parks if he wanted to. He should.

I am just not willing to sacrifice the existence of one or the other in the hope that those resources would have gone to making a "better" or "more complete" third gate. Both of those parks now have indispensable features that I would not want to lose.

Ah, but you're talking from the point of view of you knowing what's in each park. Rewind back to 1986/87 when Eisner directed WDI to throw a park together quickly and we wouldn't have known a thing about either. You would only have memories of whatever a more fully realized third park may have looked like should one have been created, thus you wouldn't have the emotional attachment.

And I agree it's up to Iger to continue investment into those parks, but the point is, he shouldn't have had to fix 5 different parks because Eisner decided to be cheap and rush openings on literally every project.

 

[Mad Dog]

And just to clarify, I do not disagree that Hollywood Studios and Animal Kingdom are still underdeveloped. That ball, however, is now in Iger's court, and he could continue to add to those parks if he wanted to. He should.

I am just not willing to sacrifice the existence of one or the other in the hope that those resources would have gone to making a "better" or "more complete" third gate. Both of those parks now have indispensable features that I would not want to lose.

Yes, once they built the fourth they were kind of stuck with four. Really no going back... Methinks Universal will stop with three 'full' dry parks for the foreseeable future.....and I would seriously doubt Disney will ever expand to five dry parks, as many of their hardcore fans are forever clamoring for.

 

[belloq87]

And I agree it's up to Iger to continue investment into those parks, but the point is, he shouldn't have had to fix 5 different parks because Eisner decided to be cheap and rush openings on literally every project.

Nobody forced him to take the job!

And sure, a lot of this is in hindsight. There are plenty of things Eisner could have done differently or better, but he's responsible for more things I like about Walt Disney World than Iger is (or will be).

Yes, once they built the fourth they were kind of stuck with four. Really no going back... Methinks Universal will stop with three 'full' dry parks for the foreseeable future.....and I would seriously doubt Disney will ever expand to five dry parks, as many of their hardcore fans are forever clamoring for.

WDW does not need a fifth gate. There's plenty of space for expansion at the existing parks... if only they would use it!

 

[Disneyhead]

2 dry parks, 1 water park, CityWalk 2.0, 6 resorts.

 

[Nick]

Nobody forced him to take the job!

And sure, a lot of this is in hindsight. There are plenty of things Eisner could have done differently or better. But he's responsible for more things I like about Walt Disney World than Iger is (or will be).

I get it and Eisner did a lot of fun things. I'm not defending Iger as much as trying to point out Eisner's errors, many of which are still felt today. A lot of people love to hate on Iger as the acquisition man and IP guy and act like Eisner did no wrong.

2 dry parks, 1 water park, CityWalk 2.0, 6 resorts.

Umm... Two dry parks? From 2000-2019? Please tell me where Universal has done that. I only mention that period of time because that's the period of time I used in the post that is seems like you are sub-quoting.

 

[SkiBum]

I think there's a case to be made both ways. Eisner certainly had more of a passion for the parks, but he's also responsible for opening two under-developed parks and will always be known for ruining Epcot in the 90's. Many people held onto some crazy belief that Epcot would return to what it was, which was never going to happen. Iger is just finishing what Eisner started in terms of Epcot, but at least the park will be a lot more fun than it was before.

Eisner added virtually nothing to the parks from 2000-2005, with Everest, Soarin' and Mission: Space being the only notables at WDW (and Soarin' was a clone from DCA with M:S being a project that took 4 years from demo to open) and nothing I can think of at DL Park. He also opened TWO MORE under-developed theme parks during these 5 years (DCA and HKDL) making it FOUR in total.

The beginning of Iger's tenure, from 2005-2009, was pretty weak. Besides Toy Story Mania (another DCA clone), I actually can't think of anything added to WDW outside of Seas with Nemo and Finding Nemo: The Musical. So all in all, the 2000's were an INCREDIBLY weak decade for both CEOs when it came to the parks. This decade has been much more active for Iger with DCA Expansion (to fix Eisner's wrongs), Star Tours 2.0, Test Track 2.0, Cars Land, New Fantasyland, Disneyland refurbs for 60th, Paint the Night (DL, HKDL), Soarin Around the World, Pandora, Toy Story Land, Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge, Runaway Railway, Beginning DCAs Marvel Land, Pixar Pier (I know...), Disney Springs redevelopment, Shanghai Disneyland, Hong Kong Disneyland expansions, Disneyland Paris expansions, etc. That's not even mentioning hotel development, new nighttime shows, etc.

Whether you like the stuff that's been added or replaced, you can't deny this has been a much more active decade, much in part to the pressure put on by Universal and Comcast's willingness to spend money, which has affected both WDW and DL in a positive way. I would say that it actually seems that Iger is finally seeing the value of investing in the theme parks, ironically just before he's leaving his position.

I wonder if Iger either a) Had stuff in the pipeline that finally saw the light of day or b) Realized that the parks were the cash cows and investment was a requirement (as you concluded at the end). I can't see it being a) because there was little to no movement for so long and I would think that Imagineering always had ideas ready to basically implement. Maybe it was more the impact that Harry Potter had on IOA/UNI that suddenly made him go, "Whoa!! You have to spend money to make money after all!!!"

 

[Nick]

I wonder if Iger either a) Had stuff in the pipeline that finally saw the light of day or b) Realized that the parks were the cash cows and investment was a requirement (as you concluded at the end). I can't see it being a) because there was little to no movement for so long and I would think that Imagineering always had ideas ready to basically implement. Maybe it was more the impact that Harry Potter had on IOA/UNI that suddenly made him go, "Whoa!! You have to spend money to make money after all!!!"

Oh, it was definitely Universal that spurred the spending on both coasts.

 

[Blue]

I think Disney would have been fine with just three parks. Star Wars Land is pretty much the first thing in DHS that feels like a perfect fit, and even then it’s going to into Disneyland over on the other coast. They could have probably made it work in Epcot as well.

The rest of the park’s worthy attractions could have been put into the other parks without many changes.

 

[Ultranel]

I disagree. I said it the other day in the UO Expansion thread and I think three dry parks is a magic number, if fully fleshed out. Had Eisner not been so dead-set on beating Universal to having a Studio Park in Orlando, maybe we could’ve had a better planned out park. If they had focused on fleshing out their three parks from there too, they could be in a much better position as far as capacity is concerned for each park and then still be positioning themselves for a potential Forth Park once all were healthy.

I think MGM was a relevant park when it open. The guest were interested on how movies were made. Unfortunately 10yrs later we started to put everything in front of a green screen and the “How movies are made” became less interesting, because it all came down to one answer, “Green Screen”. Once this happened, Universal began to build rides with movie IPs and MGM slashed out most of the studio side of the park and started to bring shows and meet and greet, and for years the only 2 things holding that park alive was 2 iconic rides on sunset blvd.

I think Disney would have been fine with just three parks. Star Wars Land is pretty much the first thing in DHS that feels like a perfect fit, and even then it’s going to into Disneyland over on the other coast. They could have probably made it work in Epcot as well.

The rest of the park’s worthy attractions could have been put into the other parks without many changes.

I would agree with your statement to a certain point. Because they DO have plenty of space on their parks. But I will be ok with a 5th park as long it focus on thrill rides (coasters) that way the resort will truly hits every family aspect. From childhood to adulthood, Disney will always be able to cater to any age range. Anything besides that! I would be against.

 

[tielo]

The amount of gates are related to what a guest will reprieve as value for a week of vacation.
A 3 park pass will cost less than a 4 day pass.
Disney could have build 1 big park and add to it indefinitely. Instead they try to build a park that have just to much for 1 day (if you do everything on a not too low season day).
The theme park industry is the one that needs yearly investments in new experiences to keep the turn styles turning. When I lived in Orlando (pre 9-11) Disney opened a new ride in one of their parks every year with often additional smaller entertainment things in other parks. After 4 years you could enjoy about 4 or 5 new rides and some new other things. I loved that but Disney wanted to get more return and less investment. A model that changed after the huge success of Potter.
Anyway, I expect Universal to copy the 4 park + 2 water parks model because the general guests will perceive that as value. If Comcast will continue investing in these parks and the parks will be perceive as having enough value they all can cost the same to enter (unlike the WDW parks) and will have people stay for a week and come back for the new experiences.

 

[NuteGunrayWasFramed]

I wonder if Iger either a) Had stuff in the pipeline that finally saw the light of day or b) Realized that the parks were the cash cows and investment was a requirement (as you concluded at the end). I can't see it being a) because there was little to no movement for so long and I would think that Imagineering always had ideas ready to basically implement. Maybe it was more the impact that Harry Potter had on IOA/UNI that suddenly made him go, "Whoa!! You have to spend money to make money after all!!!"

It's funny that Michael Eisner gets a ton of flack for taking risks and having some failures, while still having several large successes. I feel like Bob Iger has had a very narrow vision for Disney during his time as CEO. His strategy has been: Bring value back to Disney films, acquire more properties for the Disney brand, course-correct shopdisney.com and take back control of the Disney Stores, fix California Adventure, and expand the parks to mainland China. I feel like his tenure is the reverse of Michael Eisner, but oddly similar in the way that he's rushing to "fix" the domestic parks and add large additions to them, while he still is facing the same problems that Michael Eisner did at the end of his tenure. The parks are now feeling the effect of penny-pinching, the product feels like it's in a slump, the Disney brand is starting to be viewed as too "safe" as sequels and remakes are dominating their tent pole slots, and all-in-all it feels as if the situation isn't drastically different from Eisner. Improved in some areas, yes but in others (especially customer service quality) has greatly diminished.

 

[Nick]

I think MGM was a relevant park when it open. The guest were interested on how movies were made. Unfortunately 10yrs later we started to put everything in front of a green screen and the “How movies are made” became less interesting, because it all came down to one answer, “Green Screen”. Once this happened, Universal began to build rides with movie IPs and MGM slashed out most of the studio side of the park and started to bring shows and meet and greet, and for years the only 2 things holding that park alive was 2 iconic rides on sunset blvd.



I would agree with your statement to a certain point. Because they DO have plenty of space on their parks. But I will be ok with a 5th park as long it focus on thrill rides (coasters) that way the resort will truly hits every family aspect. From childhood to adulthood, Disney will always be able to cater to any age range. Anything besides that! I would be against.

The amount of gates are related to what a guest will reprieve as value for a week of vacation.
A 3 park pass will cost less than a 4 day pass.
Disney could have build 1 big park and add to it indefinitely. Instead they try to build a park that have just to much for 1 day (if you do everything on a not too low season day).
The theme park industry is the one that needs yearly investments in new experiences to keep the turn styles turning. When I lived in Orlando (pre 9-11) Disney opened a new ride in one of their parks every year with often additional smaller entertainment things in other parks. After 4 years you could enjoy about 4 or 5 new rides and some new other things. I loved that but Disney wanted to get more return and less investment. A model that changed after the huge success of Potter.
Anyway, I expect Universal to copy the 4 park + 2 water parks model because the general guests will perceive that as value. If Comcast will continue investing in these parks and the parks will be perceive as having enough value they all can cost the same to enter (unlike the WDW parks) and will have people stay for a week and come back for the new experiences.

It was actually talked about by ParentsOf4 over on Magic, who is a great member over there and great with numbers, that at the rate Disney is adding DVC properties (and hotel rooms in general), a Fifth gate actually may not be out of the question by sometime in the 2030's and provided some pretty good statistics to back up their claim.

 

[SkiBum]

It's funny that Michael Eisner gets a ton of flack for taking risks and having some failures, while still having several large successes. I feel like Bob Iger has had a very narrow vision for Disney during his time as CEO. His strategy has been: Bring value back to Disney films, acquire more properties for the Disney brand, course-correct shopdisney.com and take back control of the Disney Stores, fix California Adventure, and expand the parks to mainland China. I feel like his tenure is the reverse of Michael Eisner, but oddly similar in the way that he's rushing to "fix" the domestic parks and add large additions to them, while he still is facing the same problems that Michael Eisner did at the end of his tenure. The parks are now feeling the effect of penny-pinching, the product feels like it's in a slump, the Disney brand is starting to be viewed as too "safe" as sequels and remakes are dominating their tent pole slots, and all-in-all it feels as if the situation isn't drastically different from Eisner. Improved in some areas, yes but in others (especially customer service quality) has greatly diminished.

I get that Eisner may screwed up a few things. However, in Eisner's tenure, Disney produced some great movies as well some "eh" movies. So, they took some risks in making movies. Now, they are just retreading movies (animated to live) and taking no risks. Frozen was a huge movie and it wasn't a retread, which shows that Disney can break new ground successfully. I still disagree about how they spend money in the parks (spending close to $1.0B for two rides and a land for Avatar and even Star Wars). If the rides aren't that good (eg. Navi River Journey), it's a lot spent on something that could fail. The issue with that is that it could cause management to conclude that spend doesn't bring in income. Plus, how much capacity are you adding to the park? Sometimes, rides are added that may not be hugely popular but which round out a park's offering to the public while boosting capacity. However, if you put so much into the land, you reduce the amount you can put into the rides.

I am glad that they are building new rides at pretty much all the parks. We can argue all day about whether or not an IP should be in one park or another but hopefully the added rides are good rides that help with capacity.

 

[Nick]

I get that Eisner may screwed up a few things. However, in Eisner's tenure, Disney produced some great movies as well some "eh" movies. So, they took some risks in making movies. Now, they are just retreading movies (animated to live) and taking no risks. Frozen was a huge movie and it wasn't a retread, which shows that Disney can break new ground successfully. I still disagree about how they spend money in the parks (spending close to $1.0B for two rides and a land for Avatar and even Star Wars). If the rides aren't that good (eg. Navi River Journey), it's a lot spent on something that could fail. The issue with that is that it could cause management to conclude that spend doesn't bring in income. Plus, how much capacity are you adding to the park? Sometimes, rides are added that may not be hugely popular but which round out a park's offering to the public while boosting capacity. However, if you put so much into the land, you reduce the amount you can put into the rides.

I am glad that they are building new rides at pretty much all the parks. We can argue all day about whether or not an IP should be in one park or another but hopefully the added rides are good rides that help with capacity.

The movie division I 100% agree with you about between Eisner and Iger. Eisner had Miramax going strong and actually releasing many R-rated movies. Now all we see released is Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, WDSA, DisneyNature, and Live-Action Fantasy remakes. All of these are really Soft PG-13 at the most, too.

Maybe with FOX incoming, they will be Disney's new outlet for R-rated outings, but we'll see about that.

 

[tielo]

It was actually talked about by ParentsOf4 over on Magic, who is a great member over there and great with numbers, that at the rate Disney is adding DVC properties (and hotel rooms in general), a Fifth gate actually may not be out of the question by sometime in the 2030's and provided some pretty good statistics to back up their claim.

A 5th park comes with a ton of additional problems for Disney.
- They have to invest even more on infrastructure to take and bring guests from their hotel rooms to the new park. Something Disney isn't great in investing in.
- A new park is a whole new operation with it's own restaurant, cleaning, landscaping, etc staff.
- The new park with all the new rides will be another competing factor to their current parks meaning adding rides there to bring people back.

It would be smarter to invest in new rides that put more butts in seat in their current parks so at least 2500+ guests/hour.
Invest new rides in unused locations and bring life to empty buildings. All the parks combined have worth a collection of empty buildings that is coming close to a new theme park. They are doing it now (Paris Rat, Space restaurant, Ellen's Energy, Galaxy Edge) but there is a ton to do and add before they need to think of a new theme park.

 

[Nick]

A 5th park comes with a ton of additional problems for Disney.
- They have to invest even more on infrastructure to take and bring guests from their hotel rooms to the new park. Something Disney isn't great in investing in.
- A new park is a whole new operation with it's own restaurant, cleaning, landscaping, etc staff.
- The new park with all the new rides will be another competing factor to their current parks meaning adding rides there to bring people back.

It would be smarter to invest in new rides that put more butts in seat in their current parks so at least 2500+ guests/hour.
Invest new rides in unused locations and bring life to empty buildings. All the parks combined have worth a collection of empty buildings that is coming close to a new theme park. They are doing it now (Paris Rat, Space restaurant, Ellen's Energy, Galaxy Edge) but there is a ton to do and add before they need to think of a new theme park.

I didn't say adding a new park tomorrow

I said that the numbers given were talking about somewhere around 2030-40. That gives them plenty of time to invest a lot in their current parks, still. And make no mistake, Epcot, DHS and DAK all NEED big investment and expansions still.

 

[Ultranel]

Well I just don't think we will ever get a CEO that would care as much as Walt. In this day and age people just care about how much money they make and not what they actually do.