"Other Rumored Lands" @ DHS

[lockedoutlogic]

Just because something doesn't happen doesn't some how retroactively remove it from history. The phase exist(ed/s) and plans were drawn up.

Even if the phase never actually happens, which was always a risk, those plans may well resurface 20 years later because that's what Disney does.

Rumors are at best a snapshot in time. I don't know why people have so much trouble coping with that.

absolutely NOBODY on this board - or wdwmagic for that matter - has any clue about that. If you want to call it "coping" - so be it.

It's just common sense in this case.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

You used "optimistic" in a sentence with lockedoutlogic.

He assumes the worst at all times.

It's just common sense. People tend to hate me around here the most when it's this easy...this isn't really going out on the limb.

The idea that there any footing to another addition to back up two not yet begun to be constructed additions beyond the loony walls of wdi just doesn't compute.

Perhaps if we get to the openings and the economic conditions at the time point favorably - then it's time to talk about "budgets" and "phasing".

I'm ok with spitballing - but call it spitballing. That's exactly what we got.

 

[Eoghann]

It's just common sense. People tend to hate me around here the most when it's this easy...this isn't really going out on the limb.

The idea that there any footing to another addition to back up two not yet begun to be constructed additions beyond the loony walls of wdi just doesn't compute.

Perhaps if we get to the openings and the economic conditions at the time point favorably - then it's time to talk about "budgets" and "phasing".

I'm ok with spitballing - but call it spitballing. That's exactly what we got.

I don't hate you I just think you're splitting hairs on the definition of budgeted. I can think of plenty of examples in my company where money was "budgeted" a few years in advance. The money sometimes went away, which is why I remain cautious about any Phase 3, but at one point it was budgeted. You can argue that if it's not in the current FY budget it's not real, but I don't really see that changing anything beyond semantics.

Rumors to me are an indicator of what the company is thinking at that moment in time. They are not a guarantee of anything and the fact a rumor doesn't happen doesn't actually mean the rumor was false, it is at least as likely that something changed.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I don't hate you I just think you're splitting hairs on the definition of budgeted. I can think of plenty of examples in my company where money was "budgeted" a few years in advance. The money sometimes went away, which is why I remain cautious about any Phase 3, but at one point it was budgeted. You can argue that if it's not in the current FY budget it's not real, but I don't really see that changing anything beyond semantics.

Rumors to me are an indicator of what the company is thinking at that moment in time. They are not a guarantee of anything and the fact a rumor doesn't happen doesn't actually mean the rumor was false, it is at least as likely that something changed.

If you're saying "project X: fiscal year 2025 (tentative)"...then you and I know it isn't worth the paper used to send the email.

We just need to find our joys in life from something other than this kinda cloud nine stuff...just my opinion.

I'm still worried about avatar...there's a good chance it's all scenery and no ride systems...making it the most expensive nativity display in human history.

And we already see passes being given to toy story land and Star Wars...

Concept art of toystory land looks closer to Chester and Hester than Carsland. Is that a "win"?

And people are already assuming that Star Wars is gonna be "great"...a couple of jerky simulators and a restaurant you can't get near serving magic kingdom quality food is good enough?

These things are very possible...I'm not going too far.
For me...ill stay "eyes on the prize"

Just me.

 

[rteetz]

Reasons?

1. NYSE
2. Long term problems already documented 1,000 times over
3. Current Management
4. Future Management
5. Unlikely to continue billion dollar investments on guest services in Orlando for an extended period of time beyond current one.

It's a bit of semantics as well. If they build an additional section in 2027...it's not "phase 3"...it's just another capex brought about by Spaceballs 2: The Search for more money...

Call it what you want...they wouldn't have saved quarters in their piggy from 2015 for it...that's like saying the Alamo Dome in San Antonio is "phase II" of the actual Alamo.

And what if they do build the phase 3.

 

[rteetz]

If you're saying "project X: fiscal year 2025 (tentative)"...then you and I know it isn't worth the paper used to send the email.

We just need to find our joys in life from something other than this kinda cloud nine stuff...just my opinion.

I'm still worried about avatar...there's a good chance it's all scenery and no ride systems...making it the most expensive nativity display in human history.

And we already see passes being given to toy story land and Star Wars...

Concept art of toystory land looks closer to Chester and Hester than Carsland. Is that a "win"?

And people are already assuming that Star Wars is gonna be "great"...a couple of jerky simulators and a restaurant you can't get near serving magic kingdom quality food is good enough?

These things are very possible...I'm not going too far.
For me...ill stay "eyes on the prize"

Just me.

Really? At least this version of Toy Story land is not the one Paris or Hong Kong has. I don't think you can compare it to Chester and Hester yet.

I understand where you are coming from but why can't you be at least somewhat optimistic that anything Disney is doing will be good if not great.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

And what if they do build the phase 3.

I'll be thrilled to talk about it when we get there...I'm worried about I and II

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Really? At least this version of Toy Story land is not the one Paris or Hong Kong has. I don't think you can compare it to Chester and Hester yet.

I understand where you are coming from but why can't you be at least somewhat optimistic that anything Disney is doing will be good if not great.

Just concept so far...it seems pretty simple. I am excited to see where it goes from here.

Why am I not optimistic? I'm not sure that is a proper description. I'm always hopeful they won't spend massive amounts of money and not do a good job. That just seems a no brainer...
But I do think healthy concern is justified...why?
Everest, mission space, new fantasyland...none were earth shattering. Not terrible...but not as good as they could have been nor constructed efficiently. They haven't done great in Orlando since the end of the 90's expansion. It's gonna be hard to discredit my stance here - it's legit.

 

[PuppyJonathan]

Really? At least this version of Toy Story land is not the one Paris or Hong Kong has. I don't think you can compare it to Chester and Hester yet.

I know I'm in the minority but I think Dino-rama has the best backstory in all of the parks. Once I read it, it made me look at the land as very elaborately themed. Yes it's cheap theming but considering the backstory it makes perfect sense and it truly feels like the cheap knock-off it is supposed to be

 

[rteetz]

Just concept so far...it seems pretty simple. I am excited to see where it goes from here.

Why am I not optimistic? I'm not sure that is a proper description. I'm always hopeful they won't spend massive amounts of money and not do a good job. That just seems a no brainer...
But I do think healthy concern is justified...why?
Everest, mission space, new fantasyland...none were earth shattering. Not terrible...but not as good as they could have been nor constructed efficiently. They haven't done great in Orlando since the end of the 90's expansion. It's gonna be hard to discredit my stance here - it's legit.

I understand, but have you seen the Tory story playland in Paris? At least they developed new ride concepts for the WDW one rager than the flat rides Paris has.

I am optimistic about everything they are doing. However yes I do have some caution as I know their history. I still think they won't cheat on Star Wars though.

 

[disneysource]

If they do create another land I've heard Monstropolis is the most likely. They would bring over the laugh floor, the cali ride and add a roller coaster. But it's not likely that they will do it though because of the cost.

and Carsland isn't coming because they want to keep the Disney parks different from one another. The only reason they are doing Star Wars is because it is a moneymaker and it's simply put... awesome.

 

[eXo]

Disney critics play a game that allows them to always be right.

Most of the time they can sit back and claim Disney is full of old attractions and they don't do enough to keep things fresh.

When Disney throws a wrench in this statement and builds something new, the critic is forced to leverage criticism at the new attraction. Oh, a new Frozen ride? Well, I don't like Frozen and neither do my kids... I don't understand how anyone likes it. It's in Epcot? Then it should be educational, it's not even based on a real land. Oh.. it is base don a real land? Well... it still sucks and shouldn't be there before the old ride was my most "favoritist" ride ever. This goes on until people stop engaging with them.

When Disney announces a major expansion, then the critic can point to long turn around times, complain about the number of things shut down during construction, and speculate that when it finally arrives it won't be all that great.

When the expansion is completed, the critic can retreat to any number of criticisms, such as it took too long, it was over budget, it's old technology with a fresh paint of coat, its a "D" ride masquerading as an "E" ticket, etc. But my favorite one is "it's not what Walt would have done". At this point the critic can claim that there is no doubt that if Walt were still here, he would continue to do things exactly as he had 60 years ago. Because we all know, Walt didn't care for technology and change at all....

The critic can also totally ignore the expansion and just move on to criticizing whatever park they feel is the most neglected. When DHS is done, expect a lot of flack on Disney over Epcot.

And if backed into a corner, the critic can always retreat to accusing Disney of only doing anything to make money, while throwing around terms like "the suits up top", "the fatcats", "corporate greed", and other terms that could technically be used to describe the motivations of *any* business, but skewed in order to make it seem like it is a bad thing that Disney, like any company, is designed to make money.

Now, I'm not saying critics are never right. There is generally some truth to most criticism. When a critic becomes jaded though, they stop being objectively critical, and they start being dogmatic in regards to their cynicism. Throw in perpetual sarcasm and you have a bonafide snark.

The unfortunate thing is a participant who would normally have views worth considering begins to marginalize themselves as "that person" when it becomes apparent that no matter how much the culture they are commenting on changes, they insist on seeing things in the exact same light.

 

[eXo]

If they do create another land I've heard Monstropolis is the most likely. They would bring over the laugh floor, the cali ride and add a roller coaster. But it's not likely that they will do it though because of the cost.

and Carsland isn't coming because they want to keep the Disney parks different from one another.

Heard from who? The tram driver?

You say they want to keep the parks different from each other and then go on to say they would just bring over the cali ride for monstropolis..... If Disney wanted to make the parks different from each other they wouldn't have multiple copied rides across their parks.

I've seen a few mentions here and there of rides getting moved, wholesale. I just don't see that happening unless we were talking something like a carnival ride. Laugh Floor getting moved makes absolutely no sense. Just because they are opening a Toy Story land doesn't mean Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin is getting moved. There is no hard and fast rule that all rides with related characters must be located there. It also wouldn't be the best pitch to say, "Hey, we have a whole new land with a brand new ride, an imported ride, and a ride that's been down the street for over a decade... yay!"

Ultimately, a "monstropolis" area has no more merit to it than any other idea right now. As many people have said, phase 3 is about as blue sky as you can get right now. Has someone mentioned the possibility of a monstropolis, a cars land, or Incredibles world? Sure, but there has likely also been 100 other spitballs thrown at that wall as well.

The only reason they are doing Star Wars is because it is a moneymaker and it's simply put... awesome.

The only reason they do anything is because it is a "moneymaker" and they assume people will think it is awesome. That's not a bad thing or a good thing, it just is what it is.

 

[EricInPA]

They haven't done great in Orlando since the end of the 90's expansion. It's gonna be hard to discredit my stance here - it's legit.

Well if you say so.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Disney critics play a game that allows them to always be right.

Most of the time they can sit back and claim Disney is full of old attractions and they don't do enough to keep things fresh.

When Disney throws a wrench in this statement and builds something new, the critic is forced to leverage criticism at the new attraction. Oh, a new Frozen ride? Well, I don't like Frozen and neither do my kids... I don't understand how anyone likes it. It's in Epcot? Then it should be educational, it's not even based on a real land. Oh.. it is base don a real land? Well... it still sucks and shouldn't be there before the old ride was my most "favoritist" ride ever. This goes on until people stop engaging with them.

When Disney announces a major expansion, then the critic can point to long turn around times, complain about the number of things shut down during construction, and speculate that when it finally arrives it won't be all that great.

When the expansion is completed, the critic can retreat to any number of criticisms, such as it took too long, it was over budget, it's old technology with a fresh paint of coat, its a "D" ride masquerading as an "E" ticket, etc. But my favorite one is "it's not what Walt would have done". At this point the critic can claim that there is no doubt that if Walt were still here, he would continue to do things exactly as he had 60 years ago. Because we all know, Walt didn't care for technology and change at all....

The critic can also totally ignore the expansion and just move on to criticizing whatever park they feel is the most neglected. When DHS is done, expect a lot of flack on Disney over Epcot.

And if backed into a corner, the critic can always retreat to accusing Disney of only doing anything to make money, while throwing around terms like "the suits up top", "the fatcats", "corporate greed", and other terms that could technically be used to describe the motivations of *any* business, but skewed in order to make it seem like it is a bad thing that Disney, like any company, is designed to make money.

Now, I'm not saying critics are never right. There is generally some truth to most criticism. When a critic becomes jaded though, they stop being objectively critical, and they start being dogmatic in regards to their cynicism. Throw in perpetual sarcasm and you have a bonafide snark.

The unfortunate thing is a participant who would normally have views worth considering begins to marginalize themselves as "that person" when it becomes apparent that no matter how much the culture they are commenting on changes, they insist on seeing things in the exact same light.

I'm curious what "game" the Disney apologists play?...in your estimation?

 

[SoCalTrojanSkip]

I'm very surprised that the rights were sold for perpetuity. The lawyer that did that needs to be sacked.

The quote I've often heard about this deal is that at the time Marvel was selling off right to "pay for toner in the copy machine"...

Make of that what you will.

 

[disneysource]

Heard from who? The tram driver?

You say they want to keep the parks different from each other and then go on to say they would just bring over the cali ride for monstropolis..... If Disney wanted to make the parks different from each other they wouldn't have multiple copied rides across their parks.

It's best if I not say where I get my info anymore. Last time he got in a little trouble over it.

As for the same rides comment,

The monster inc ride at Cali isn't something that makes or breaks someones trip. People don't say "I have to go to Disneyland to ride the Monsters Inc ride." I'm talking about major attractions like Ratatouille and Crush Coaster.

 

[DanBoris]

It's best if I not say where I get my info anymore. Last time he got in a little trouble over it.

As for the same rides comment,

The monster inc ride at Cali isn't something that makes or breaks someones trip. People don't say "I have to go to Disneyland to ride the Monsters Inc ride." I'm talking about major attractions like Ratatouille and Crush Coaster.

When it comes to the US parks, Disney doesn't care which one you go to, they get the money all the same. I don't think Disney has a big problem with duplication, they are doing it with Star Wars land.

 

[Eoghann]

When it comes to the US parks, Disney doesn't care which one you go to, they get the money all the same. I don't think Disney has a big problem with duplication, they are doing it with Star Wars land.

From what I understand historically there's not actually that much overlap in visitors between the two US parks. Yes the sort of obsessives who hang around on Disney boards (cough) might have to see both, but most people will just go to the closer of the two.

The notion of "unique" rides is a pretty modern one really. I mean MK is basically a bunch of cloned rides.

 

[rteetz]

From what I understand historically there's not actually that much overlap in visitors between the two US parks. Yes the sort of obsessives who hang around on Disney boards (cough) might have to see both, but most people will just go to the closer of the two.

The notion of "unique" rides is a pretty modern one really. I mean MK is basically a bunch of cloned rides.

In Walts original plan for WDW I believe he had an exact copy of Disneyland.