Frozen Ever After

[deathcab4cutie]

so if it is delayed are we guessing a 2017 opening now instead of dec 2016

 

[Disneyhead]

so if it is delayed are we guessing a 2017 opening now instead of dec 2016

It was supposed to be March 2016. Now it is June 2016.

Late June.

 

[Teebin]

Most of the folks a hang with socially are way into the Disney thing. Several run Disney sites. The chatter for quite a while has been that it is behind schedule. .

Sounds reasonable and good to me!

 

[Mad Dog]

That may be best for the park anyway. That way it won't be debuting during the Soarin refurb. Capacity could have been "more" of an issue when the crowds descended on a Frozen with no Soarin. Soarin should be open by late June. Frozen opening with Soarin closed never made much sense anyway. The delay may prove to be a fortuitous move.....Another sign we will not see Star Wars open in 2018. Disney bureaucracy just isn't capable of major stuff with any speed, even if their intentions are to do so.

 

[Disneyhead]

And the cuts to the ride aren't "budget" cuts, just stuff being cut to get the ride open. We will probably see the cut FX eventually, but not at open.

Sort of like the Skipper's Canteen in that regard.

 

[Ryan]

Well it's simple, really. Cars Land and the park overhaul cost a billion dollars and left the park a mess for two solid years. They want to enjoy their new influx of guests and revenue stream for a bit before kicking up more dust. That and their entire team is working on SWL. Cars Land is still "new." There are still 180 minute waits for RSR. They've got enough at DCA at the moment that they don't need to pull people over from SWL to create another attraction. Once SWL opens, they'll shift their attention back to DCA. That's how they're supposed to roll out here. Beefing up the parks back and forth. Good strategy.

CL opened in 2012. By SWL it'll be eight years old. The strategy doesn't line up in any reasonable form.

When you have Universal doing it the back-and-forth every other year, this excuse is laughable.

 

[Ryan]

And the cuts to the ride aren't "budget" cuts, just stuff being cut to get the ride open. We will probably see the cut FX eventually, but not at open.

Sort of like the Skipper's Canteen in that regard.

Or, to a different extent, Little Mermaid?

 

[UNIrd]

Was anyone actually looking for this to open in March? I would have thought May at the earliest.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Was anyone actually looking for this to open in March? I would have thought May at the earliest.

My understanding was they were even wanting it possibly open before the end of the year (though that might have gone away quickly). It's nuts to me that Kong might open before this attraction.

 

[Jymmymack]

CL opened in 2012. By SWL it'll be eight years old. The strategy doesn't line up in any reasonable form.

When you have Universal doing it the back-and-forth every other year, this excuse is laughable.

It does line up when each expansion is 1.5 billion. Do you really expect that level of construction each and every year when the park consistently is the #2 park in the country every year?

You're arguing from the point of view of a fan, not a business. By the time SWL opens up and draws crowds, they'll move back over to DCA and add something new. It's simple business. Universal doesn't have the market share that Disney does so they are seriously beefing up their parks. Disney is adding 1 billion dollar expansions every 5-8 to maintain their level. They don't need to do it year in and year out. They own the market.

 

[Viator]

It does line up when each expansion is 1.5 billion. Do you really expect that level of construction each and every year when the park consistently is the #2 park in the country every year?

You're arguing from the point of view of a fan, not a business. By the time SWL opens up and draws crowds, they'll move back over to DCA and add something new. It's simple business. Universal doesn't have the market share that Disney does so they are seriously beefing up their parks. Disney is adding 1 billion dollar expansions every 5-8 to maintain their level. They don't need to do it year in and year out. They own the market.

Heres the thing from where I see it. As Universal is trying to beef up the park; they have been putting it to highly budgeted additions that go in development atleast for a good amount of time. Take for instance, Kong which seems to be around the 100-150 million dollar range, and that's a highly themed attraction with some fascinating effects that could be in the final cut.

Now take for instance, Pandora; which is an entire land..its reportedly over 500 million dollars in the terms of its budget. But, when you think that Universal Creative is going low budgeted for some of their big E-Ticket attractions; It makes you think on whats going wrong at WDI that's making these budgets so outlandish.

 

[Mad Dog]

Heres the thing from where I see it. As Universal is trying to beef up the park; they have been putting it to highly budgeted additions that go in development atleast for a good amount of time. Take for instance, Kong which seems to be around the 100-150 million dollar range, and that's a highly themed attraction with some fascinating effects that could be in the final cut.

Now take for instance, Pandora; which is an entire land..its reportedly over 500 million dollars in the terms of its budget. But, when you think that Universal Creative is going low budgeted for some of their big E-Ticket attractions; It makes you think on whats going wrong at WDI that's making these budgets so outlandish.

Mice Chat had a really good article by a former Disney employee (Accounting Dept. if my memory serves me correct) on the ridiculous amounts the Imagineers used to charge the theme parks for run of the mill ordinary items. Think Pentagon type outlandish costs. If you can find the article it's easily understandable why a Disney development costs two or three times what Universal would pay. The Imagineering section seems to be a bloated over paid and overstaffed bureaucracy that needs to inflate their costs to justify their existence.

 

[Jymmymack]

Heres the thing from where I see it. As Universal is trying to beef up the park; they have been putting it to highly budgeted additions that go in development atleast for a good amount of time. Take for instance, Kong which seems to be around the 100-150 million dollar range, and that's a highly themed attraction with some fascinating effects that could be in the final cut.

Now take for instance, Pandora; which is an entire land..its reportedly over 500 million dollars in the terms of its budget. But, when you think that Universal Creative is going low budgeted for some of their big E-Ticket attractions; It makes you think on whats going wrong at WDI that's making these budgets so outlandish.

Well that's a different argument. I don't disagree but adding one of the best dark rides in the country and a giant land to boot (plus 3 minor attractions) is enough for one park until SWL (which will do ENORMOUS business) is made. And then they can pad out DCA some more. It doesn't make any sense to do both when they don't have to. From a business perspective.

It's not a Disney vs. Universal comparison. If you don't have to add a ride every single year to do the most business in the country, why would you? One major land will do. That's the way they see it. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that the idea that it's bad business is obviously just a theme park enthusiasts skewed opinion.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Well that's a different argument. I don't disagree but adding one of the best dark rides in the country and a giant land to boot (plus 3 minor attractions) is enough for one park until SWL (which will do ENORMOUS business) is made. And then they can pad out DCA some more. It doesn't make any sense to do both when they don't have to. From a business perspective.

It's not a Disney vs. Universal comparison. If you don't have to add a ride every single year to do the most business in the country, why would you? One major land will do. That's the way they see it. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that the idea that it's bad business is obviously just a theme park enthusiasts skewed opinion.

I think "they don't need it" is an incorrect assumption. Is DCA and DLR sustaining attendance because of built up goodwill and reputation or people "only" want new attractions every handful of years? Every other piece of data in amusement and theme parks says it's Disney's reputation and goodwill, and those things could go away based on lack of new attractions.

 

[MillenniumDragons]

Sure the ride will be a hit among the kids and for the most part, the GP, but the whole project seems like an illegitimate spawn of an out of the blue Disney idea. I'm hoping that they're shaking their heads saying "We could've waited a few more months to get this in with the DHS refurb plans." Not trying to be a Duke of Weaselton.

 

[Nick]

Well it's simple, really. Cars Land and the park overhaul cost a billion dollars and left the park a mess for two solid years. They want to enjoy their new influx of guests and revenue stream for a bit before kicking up more dust. That and their entire team is working on SWL. Cars Land is still "new." There are still 180 minute waits for RSR. They've got enough at DCA at the moment that they don't need to pull people over from SWL to create another attraction. Once SWL opens, they'll shift their attention back to DCA. That's how they're supposed to roll out here. Beefing up the parks back and forth. Good strategy.

And they are ruining Disneyland by putting SWL there. It makes no sense thematically and is eating up beautiful woodland areas.

SWL should've been either at DCA or kept for a third park (and there's plenty of room for one).

 

[Jymmymack]

I think "they don't need it" is an incorrect assumption. Is DCA and DLR sustaining attendance because of built up goodwill and reputation or people "only" want new attractions every handful of years? Every other piece of data in amusement and theme parks says it's Disney's reputation and goodwill, and those things could go away based on lack of new attractions.

I personally don't agree with it, but from a business perspective, they can for the most part coast on goodwill. Before Cars Land debuted, DCA hit 6.3 million guests per year. Last year they did 8.7.

Once again we're arguing about aesthetics and what the ideal park would be. I don't disagree. But skewing the comments as if they are actively losing patrons or slipping is stretching. They're gaining year-over-year. Disneyland itself is gaining half a million visitors a year and closing the gap on MK (19.3 to 16.8).

Again, I'm NOT arguing that I agree with them coasting or taking too much time on beefing up the parks. I'd love to see it. But when you're actively gaining profit year-over-year, it doesn't make business sense to constantly add things every year that cost a ton of money. It's a business guys. They don't care about us.

 

[UNIrd]

Do we want shiny new things to experience each year? Of course. More than anyone. But adding new attractions does more than appease our appetite for themed attractions. But what's most necessary right now in Disney parks is the added capacity.

All the U.S. parks are overcrowded and they needed new spaces and experiences to shuffle these hundreds of thousands of new guests to. Just because you're #1 in the market and making stupid profits doesn't mean you're supposed to just sit on them.

 

[Jymmymack]

Do we want shiny new things to experience each year? Of course. More than anyone. But adding new attractions does more than appease our appetite for themed attractions. But what's most necessary right now in Disney parks is the added capacity.

All the U.S. parks are overcrowded and they needed new spaces and experiences to shuffle these hundreds of thousands of new guests to. Just because you're #1 in the market and making stupid profits doesn't mean you're supposed to just sit on them.

... which is why an entire HUGE new land was opened in DCA with 4 new total attractions. And Star Wars Land with 3 more attractions being built. Someone said that Star Wars land was ruining the theming of Disneyland. And I agree 100%. But it's also increasing the capacity of that park. Which IS much needed as you point out. Disneyland itself only had so much room. After this section there's only the section by Matterhorn left and then that's it.

But really, again, it seems like we're rallying against them for what we as fans want. It's noble, but it isn't representative of the base fans that go there and definitely doesn't gel with the business aspect.

 

[Nick]

After this section there's only the section by Matterhorn left and then that's it.

After SWL (or during), Toontown is getting the boot for Arrendelle.