First CARS @ AoA-Now CARS LAND @ DHS!?

[marybaby08]

Originally Posted by pilferk

Which is the point.

Disney wants to drive tourists out to DCA/DLR. They've flat out said so.

That you haven't been there in 34 years demonstrates their need to do it.

Whether you experience the attraction or not isn't Disney's primary concern. It's WHERE you experience it, and why, that concerns them. They WANT you to HAVE to go to DLR.

If you choose not to..that's your decision. But Disney doesn't want to make the choice easy for you. That's not their goal in all this.

They want tourist... but just for 5 days

[tjkraz]

If this ends up being true, it makes me ill.

I'm not as down on DHS as some folks are but IMO Cars Land does NOTHING to help improve / unify the theme of the park. Thematically this is a worse match than Avatar at DAK.

And 3/4 of a BILLION dollars spent to replicate something that's a plane ride away. What a waste.

[ChipnDale79]

Originally Posted by tjkraz

If this ends up being true, it makes me ill.

I'm not as down on DHS as some folks are but IMO Cars Land does NOTHING to help improve / unify the theme of the park. Thematically this is a worse match than Avatar at DAK.

And 3/4 of a BILLION dollars spent to replicate something that's a plane ride away. What a waste.

Animation and filming arent coming back to DHS, i think we would all like to see that instead of a Carsland, I mean that was what DHS was built around, but its not coming back.

If something were to be done to DHS, as many people believe something needs to be done, what do you suggest?

Keep in mind, if it were so easy for people to just jump on a plane and go to DLR, WDW would have never been built. Walt wanted WDW built so that he could cater to the people on the East Coast, to me, the same logic applies here.

I think most people on this board would jump on a plane, after all, we are all disney fanatics, but I don't think the typical Disney guest is going to do that.

[DisneyRunnerChick]

Originally Posted by ChipnDale79

The decision is pretty simple for this family of 4, which i consider to be pretty typical, its not worth spending an additional $1200-$1500 to fly out west to see Carsland.

I think it'll help disney get people on the west coast to come stay a few days, but I really don't think Carsland is going to draw people from WDW to DLR.

That's me, too. I live in GA and can easily hop in the car to drive to WDW or pick up a $100 flight; DLR is across the country, and the plane tickets for the family cost as much as our normal weeklong trip. We plan on going to DLR once, just to say we've been there, but we would definitely make an extra trip to WDW to see Carsland!

[tjkraz]

Originally Posted by ChipnDale79

Animation and filming arent coming back to DHS, i think we would all like to see that instead of a Carsland, I mean that was what DHS was built around, but its not coming back.

If something were to be done to DHS, as many people believe something needs to be done, what do you suggest?

Focusing on film and animation was a flawed concept from the start. Those are SoCal industries. With hindsight being 20/20, it's apparent Disney wasn't going to be able to offer the facilities necessary to support feature production.

IMO, DHS is best viewed as a celebration of the entertainment industry. Major entertainment properties are already represented (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Twilight Zone, Aerosmith, Muppets, everything in GMR.) I'd much rather see the Monster's Inc coaster enclosed in a "soundstage" which matches most other park areas. Or some expansion of "Pixar Place" which is themed to resemble the Emeryville campus.

Dropping the Cadillac mountain range into the back corner of the park is not an ideal solution, IMO.

Keep in mind, if it were so easy for people to just jump on a plane and go to DLR, WDW would have never been built. Walt wanted WDW built so that he could cater to the people on the East Coast, to me, the same logic applies here.

No, Walt Disney wanted to build a futuristic city in central Florida. At no time did he intend to build four theme parks and 25 resort hotels.

I think most people on this board would jump on a plane, after all, we are all disney fanatics, but I don't think the typical Disney guest is going to do that.

The people at Walt Disney Imagineering are held up as the greatest innovators in the theme park industry. In a GOOD year, Walt Disney World might get one or two all new attractions. And when given nearly a BILLION dollars to work with, the best they can do is CLONE something they've already built?!? How sad.

I've been to Cars Land in the last month. And yes, it's a fantastic addition. But instead of cheering the possibility of Disney copying their prior work, we should be rooting for them to build something even better at Hollywood Studios.

I realize that people in Florida and Georgia and South Carolina aren't going to fly 2500 miles to Disneyland with the same frequency they visit Walt Disney World. But you know what....the option still exists. And it's worth the added expense when there is a variety of unique experiences including Matterhorn, Toontown, Nemo subs, California Screamin, World of Color, Cars Land...

There are tens-of-millions of people living in middle America who have equal access to both locations. And if you've been following reports of Disney California Adventure's attendance, it seems apparent that Disney has dramatically improved the park's standing. Those extra turnstile clicks are coming from somewhere.

Regardless of how individual consumers say they would respond, it seems logical to assume that with unique products (parks), SOME percentage will go out of their way to sample both. When the products are identical...why bother.

[pilferk]

Originally Posted by ChipnDale79

The decision is pretty simple for this family of 4, which i consider to be pretty typical, its not worth spending an additional $1200-$1500 to fly out west to see Carsland.

I think it'll help disney get people on the west coast to come stay a few days, but I really don't think Carsland is going to draw people from WDW to DLR.

But having Cars land in FL would convince you to spend $1200 more in florida or make your trip (not just your day at dhs) longer?

Also, realize that while it might not lure east coasters...the pull for the other 2/3 of the country might be much stronger.

Everybody considers themselves "typical".

[pilferk]

Originally Posted by marybaby08

They want tourist... but just for 5 days

At DLR? Pretty much true. But for that market, facility, and the investment they have made...that appears to be what they are aiming for. I don't see the problem (or your point).

At WDW? No, they want you for 6 to 7 days...which is what they have got set, now. Thats the average amount of US vacation time, too...which is not a coincidence.

[prfctlyximprfct]

I would love a Carsland at DHS!! I'm from NJ and no offense, but I would probably not go to DisneyLand unless I was already going on vacation to the West Coast. It's just 2 parks, I couldn't spend my vacation there. WDW has so much more to offer which allows guests to stay for their whole vacation. I'd love to experience CarsLand but it's tough for me to give up a WDW vacation for a DL vacation, so why not give me the best of both worlds?!

[pilferk]

Originally Posted by ChipnDale79

Animation and filming arent coming back to DHS, i think we would all like to see that instead of a Carsland, I mean that was what DHS was built around, but its not coming back.

If something were to be done to DHS, as many people believe something needs to be done, what do you suggest?

Keep in mind, if it were so easy for people to just jump on a plane and go to DLR, WDW would have never been built. Walt wanted WDW built so that he could cater to the people on the East Coast, to me, the same logic applies here.

I think most people on this board would jump on a plane, after all, we are all disney fanatics, but I don't think the typical Disney guest is going to do that.

Actually, thats revisionist history.

Walt chose FL because of it climate, its abundance of cheap land, and the fact the state govt was willing to work with Disney. He wanted total control of the project and its surroundings.

Walt had no real plans for a DL style Magic Kingdom. That was Roy, trying to figure out a way to pay the bills.

The thing is...it only makes "sense" to the people who want it to be built. It doesn't appear to make great fiscal sense. It doesnt fit all that well thematically. It doesn't make great logistical sense.

Just like with DL's Indy ride, or Roger Rabbit, or The matterhorne...just because some of my east coast brethren want it doesn't mean it gets built.

[pilferk]

Originally Posted by prfctlyximprfct

I would love a Carsland at DHS!! I'm from NJ and no offense, but I would probably not go to DisneyLand unless I was already going on vacation to the West Coast. It's just 2 parks, I couldn't spend my vacation there. WDW has so much more to offer which allows guests to stay for their whole vacation. I'd love to experience CarsLand but it's tough for me to give up a WDW vacation for a DL vacation, so why not give me the best of both worlds?!

But you just said it...wdw already has enough to fill your vacation.

And unless you are REALLY lucky, yearly vacation time is limited. "Extra" trips become hard if you are already going to wdw most years. Making trips longer becomes hard when you are already there for a week.

Which makes it hard to see why investing 750 million has a significant return or increase in guest spending.

[Sweettears]

Originally Posted by pilferk

Which is the point.

Disney wants to drive tourists out to DCA/DLR. They've flat out said so.

That you haven't been there in 34 years demonstrates their need to do it.

Whether you experience the attraction or not isn't Disney's primary concern. It's WHERE you experience it, and why, that concerns them. They WANT you to HAVE to go to DLR.

If you choose not to..that's your decision. But Disney doesn't want to make the choice easy for you. That's not their goal in all this.

I disagree . Disney makes much more $$ on WDW visitors (staying on site) than they do at DLR. DLR has very limited on site capacity and still isn't considered a destination like WDW is. Adding attractions isn't going to change that. California is still California and an awful long way for a significant percentage of vacationers to travel. Once the novelty of Carsland wears off I think it would make sense to add it at WDW to attract all those that can't or aren't willing to travel to the west coast. It's popularity at DLR will likely make the decision to add it at WDW much easier.

[Sweettears]

Originally Posted by pilferk

Actually, thats revisionist history.



Walt had no real plans for a DL style Magic Kingdom. That was Roy, trying to figure out a way to pay the bills.



built.

Not a true statement. If this is true what did he have planned when he made the announcement?

[tjkraz]

Originally Posted by Sweettears

I disagree . Disney makes much more $$ on WDW visitors (staying on site) than they do at DLR. DLR has very limited on site capacity and still isn't considered a destination like WDW is.

And that's exactly why Disney invested over a Billion dollars in DCA. It's a growth market. Disney wants people to realize that it's just as worthwhile to travel 1800 miles from Chicago to Anaheim as it is 1200 miles from Chi to Orlando.

Adding attractions isn't going to change that.

It already has. Go find some of the reports showing how much attendance has increased at DCA since mid-June. It isn't just SoCal locals who are going to check-out the new attractions.

California is still California and an awful long way for a significant percentage of vacationers to travel.

You speak like someone who thinks west of the Mississippi is a foreign country.

I agree that Walt Disney World is closer for many on the east coast. But we have a west coast, too. And a handful of middle states, too.

I'm curious...have you been to Disneyland in the last 5 years? Your comments sound more like generic (often erroneous) criticism from folks who have never been--at least not since construction of the Grand Californian, DCA, renovations to Disneyland Hotel, growth of Downtown Disney, etc.

Once the novelty of Carsland wears off I think it would make sense to add it at WDW to attract all those that can't or aren't willing to travel to the west coast. It's popularity at DLR will likely make the decision to add it at WDW much easier.

And I fail to see why an organization like Walt Disney Imagineering cannot come up with an original concept. In the long run, I think it is far more valuable to both DL and WDW for them to maintain original offerings. There are very few people who "can't" travel to the west coast. More often it's a case of "aren't willing" to travel. And if those folks are sufficiently motivated, they'll find a reason to travel.

I'm quite sure there is some corporate synergistic, cost-saving logic behind cloning attractions. But I would much rather see something original.

If you handed Picasso two blank canvases, would you want him to paint the same picture twice?

I would rather not see Imagineering spend $1.5 billion to build the same attraction twice. The first one is there waiting. All you have to do is seek it out.

Not a true statement. If this is true what did he have planned when he made the announcement?

He had E.P.C.O.T. planned. Not the theme park "EPCOT" but the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. It was to be a working city...not a Disneyland clone. And his plans were in such a raw state that when Walt passed away literally WEEKS after filming the famous video, Disney executives were paralyzed for more than a year as they tried to figure out how to proceed.

Finally the decision was made to simply clone Disneyland with a larger castle and wider walkways. Walt Disney--the man--had virtually no influence on what we know as Walt Disney World.

[ChrisFL]

Originally Posted by Sweettears

Not a true statement. If this is true what did he have planned when he made the announcement?

EPCOT, the city plan. Yes, there was going to be a Disneyland style park, but that was not Walt's ownership at that point, he had his imagineers who he trusted to do that, to help fund his huge project.

EPCOT was 100% the reason why he wanted the land in Florida, he was going to revolutionize the idea of a city and wanted the major industries to help as well.

Edit: Didn't notice tjkraz beat me to it!

[Sweettears]

Originally Posted by tjkraz

And that's exactly why Disney invested over a Billion dollars in DCA. It's a growth market. Disney wants people to realize that it's just as worthwhile to travel 1800 miles from Chicago to Anaheim as it is 1200 miles from Chi to Orlando.



It already has. Go find some of the reports showing how much attendance has increased at DCA since mid-June. It isn't just SoCal locals who are going to check-out the new attractions.

Show me the statistics on this. It certainly has increased the attendance in the short run. Show me that it has increased nationwide travel to any significant degree.

You speak like someone who thinks west of the Mississippi is a foreign country.

Not sure how you interpret sound from a text but look up population densities and, with the exception of CA you will see what I'm referring to.

I agree that Walt Disney World is closer for many on the east coast. But we have a west coast, too. And a handful of middle states, too.

I'm curious...have you been to Disneyland in the last 5 years? Your comments sound more like generic (often erroneous) criticism from folks who have never been--at least not since construction of the Grand Californian, DCA, renovations to Disneyland Hotel, growth of Downtown Disney, etc.

How about three times in the last 5 years. Last visit about a month before Lm opened.


And I fail to see why an organization like Walt Disney Imagineering cannot come up with an original concept. In the long run, I think it is far more valuable to both DL and WDW for them to maintain original offerings. There are very few people who "can't" travel to the west coast. More often it's a case of "aren't willing" to travel. And if those folks are sufficiently motivated, they'll find a reason to travel.

Because its much more expensive and I would suggest that the population of non DIS fans don't visit both parks on a regular basis.

I'm quite sure there is some corporate synergistic, cost-saving logic behind cloning attractions. But I would much rather see something original.

If you handed Picasso two blank canvases, would you want him to paint the same picture twice?

Don't like Picasso.

I would rather not see Imagineering spend $1.5 billion to build the same attraction twice. The first one is there waiting. All you have to do is seek it out.

He had E.P.C.O.T. planned. Not the theme park "EPCOT" but the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. It was to be a working city...not a Disneyland clone. And his plans were in such a raw state that when Walt passed away literally WEEKS after filming the famous video, Disney executives were paralyzed for more than a year as they tried to figure out how to proceed.

Finally the decision was made to simply clone Disneyland with a larger castle and wider walkways. Walt Disney--the man--had virtually no influence on what we know as Walt Disney World.

Not true. He was more excited about the EPCOT project but without MK where was the revenue going to come from to support the development?

Sorry IPad challenged. Responses imbedded above.