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

[Sweettears]

Originally Posted by ChrisFL

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!

Yes but he knew it was part of the project. How were they planning on supporting the development of EPCOT without a source of revenue?

[ChrisFL]

Originally Posted by newdeal

They have plenty of room to add it without dropping lights motors action. I dont like that show but if they change it to cars lamd how will it affect the backlot tour

They're dropping Lights Motor Action...its not doing well for attendance and there's a LOT of costs associated iwth running it.

As far as the backlot tour... Its only a mere shadow of the tour it was when it first opened.

If I had a way, I'd make a backlot tour kinda like the railroad at MK...give it a way to circle the park and at least partially solve the problems of bad design the park layout has.

[ChipnDale79]

Originally Posted by Sweettears

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.

Your right, its not true..Walt wanted a park on the East Coast, because they found very little people were coming from east of the Mississippi, hence the reason why he almost built a park in Kansas City. We have a resort in FL because the KC deal fell through.

By keeping Carsland in Cali you are asking the majority of the country, those east of the Mississippi to fly cross country, i dont see it happening. It's too expensive for most people to do on top of a Disney vacation.

[ChrisFL]

Originally Posted by Sweettears

Yes but he knew it was part of the project. How were they planning on supporting the development of EPCOT without a source of revenue?

I never said there's no source of revenue, look at my statement again

[Sweettears]

Originally Posted by ChrisFL

They're dropping Lights Motor Action...its not doing well for attendance and there's a LOT of costs associated iwth running it.

As far as the backlot tour... Its only a mere shadow of the tour it was when it first opened.

If I had a way, I'd make a backlot tour kinda like the railroad at MK...give it a way to circle the park and at least partially solve the problems of bad design the park layout has.

I agree. And good idea on the RR concept.

[Sweettears]

Originally Posted by ChrisFL

I never said there's no source of revenue, look at my statement again

Whatever. Read his bio. Page 332. If not you PP stated that it was Roy that came up with the concept of MK and Walt either had no knowledge or wasn't involved in its inception.

[ChrisFL]

Originally Posted by Sweettears

Whatever. Read his bio. Page 332. If not you PP stated that it was Roy that came up with the concept of MK and Walt either had no knowledge or wasn't involved in its inception.

Well anyone who's watched the Florida Film knows that Walt knew full well that a park was being built. Whether it was Roy's idea to convince Walt it was needed to help fund EPCOT, I have no idea.

[tjkraz]

Originally Posted by Sweettears

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.

I can show you four plane tickets from July 2012.

Why does it have to be a "significant degree?" The point is increasing Disneyland's viability as a destination for those living in other parts of the US. Whether the overall increase is 100%, 10% or 1%, an increase is an increase.

And whatever increase in east/midwest travel Cars Land has caused, it will be lessened if the land is duplicated at WDW.

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

3 visits to Disneyland in 5 years and you think the duplication is a good idea?

Here is the part I simply cannot grasp: Why does it have to be Cars Land at Hollywood Studios? Is imagineering so bereft of good ideas that they cannot find an effective way to spend $750M on something unique for DHS? I completely understand all of the pros: great reviews, sells toys, blah, blah, blah.

So find another concept which meets all of those same criteria.

Hollywood Studios doesn't need Cars Land specifically...it needs new attractions. So build new attractions which are equally compelling and yet unique to that particular park.

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.

Chicken and the egg. If Disney duplicates most attractions on both coasts, people in the east have no reason to ever consider a visit to Disneyland.

I live in Ohio and I've had flights LA which were cheaper than flights to Orlando.

[Sweettears]

Originally Posted by tjkraz

I can show you four plane tickets from July 2012.

Why does it have to be a "significant degree?" The point is increasing Disneyland's viability as a destination for those living in other parts of the US. Whether the overall increase is 100%, 10% or 1%, an increase is an increase.

And whatever increase in east/midwest travel Cars Land has caused, it will be lessened if the land is duplicated at WDW.



3 visits to Disneyland in 5 years and you think the duplication is a good idea?

Here is the part I simply cannot grasp: Why does it have to be Cars Land at Hollywood Studios? Is imagineering so bereft of good ideas that they cannot find an effective way to spend $750M on something unique for DHS? I completely understand all of the pros: great reviews, sells toys, blah, blah, blah.

So find another concept which meets all of those same criteria.

Hollywood Studios doesn't need Cars Land specifically...it needs new attractions. So build new attractions which are equally compelling and yet unique to that particular park.



Chicken and the egg. If Disney duplicates most attractions on both coasts, people in the east have no reason to ever consider a visit to Disneyland.

I live in Ohio and I've had flights LA which were cheaper than flights to Orlando.

Points taken. My comment was more directed at staying power rather than the impact of something new.

While it would be great if they could come up with a new concept that would blow us all away, I have faith that a Carsland at HS might plus the attraction at DLR to make it even better. IE eliminating the floating tire deal. After all while Disney has duplicated rides at its parks they often tweak them to improve the experience.

I think everyone agrees that HS Ned's help. I would rather se Carsland than nothing.

[rabbitroger]

When WDW first started there were a number of attraction which were slightly different versions of DL rides, Pirates, Mansion, etc.

However in the last 10 or 20 years i cannot think of a single new ride at either American resort (International are a different kettle of fish by definition) which was a duplication of an existing one at the other resort.

[pilferk]

Originally Posted by Sweettears

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

Sorry, but it is a true statement. It's one a LOT of people don't realize, but it's true.

Listen to the announcement.

He planned EPCOT. NOT the theme park version...the futuristic city.

Magic Kingdom was a concession (and one Walt fought against for early parts of the project). It was Roy's baby, really....with some insistence from the Florida Goverment as part of the deal to give Reedy Creek it's broad authority.

Walt didn't "build wDW" specifically so people on the east coast had easier access to a DL style park. He just didn't.

[pilferk]

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. 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.

WDW isn't much of a growth market. In other words...they've got your full vacation time accounted for. They've more or less maximized per capita guest spending. The only way they build something is if they think they can extend your stay, or increase per capita guest spending. I've yet to hear a plausible explanation as to how Cars Land at WDW would do either.

Right now, they've got pretty close to 7 days of your vacation filled at WDW. You have 2 half day parks..which, honestly, works to their advantage because it drives guest to other profit centers (water parks, restaurants, etc), and 2 "day and a half" (at least) parks. And, for the most part, they have their guests held hostage on property. In some cases because Disney was the sole method of transport to/from the airport. And in other cases because of the sheer size of the resort.

DLR, on the other hand, IS a growth market. They have spare hotel capacity, they have room to grow attendance numbers, and they have room to expand both per capita guest spending AND length of stay.

It's a market that makes much more sense for Disney to invest in.

They WANT it to be considered a destination. That's the point. That's why they put just over a billion dollars (and 750 million into Cars land) into what was essentially a new park. It wasn't doing the job they wanted it to do.

If it's TRULY popular at DCA, and it does what they've set it up to do (increase tourism), I'd actually say it's LESS likely to come to WDW. For exactly those reasons.

[pilferk]

Originally Posted by Sweettears

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.

It doesn't have to.

It has to increase attendance without pulling too many from DL. It's doing that.

We'll never see Disney data, so if that's what it's going to take to convince you...there will forever be a disconnect.

But sound business logic and observation will tell you what tjkraz is telling you is, in fact, true. And it's certainly Disney's STATED goal...to make DLR more of a destination vactation and not as much of a locals park.

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.

Irrelevant.

There is still, geographically, a decent sized portion of the country you can cater to. Millions. Just because it's not "as large" as the east coast really has no relevance.

IF Disney's goal was simply to expose Cars Land to the largest number of customers/guests...it would have been built at WDW in the first place.

It's not, so it wasn't.

The goal is to garner more UNIQUE visitors and increase revenue/profit. A "unique" land at DLR helps do that. Cutting off ANY potential visits by cannibalizing/cloning it is counter-productive.

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

Then....you've just made the case that you CAN travel from the East Coast to the West Coast.

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.

Possibly not.

But the goal isn't to have everyone see it. That's what the FANS want...not necessarily what Disney wants, or is in their best interests.

Saying "It should be built here because I want to see it" isn't a real compelling case.

Don't like Picasso.

Rembrandt, Divinci, Renoir?

It's a still a valid point.

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.

It is absolutely 100% true.

Roy used the MK project to get funding, and to get the concessions they needed out of the Florida State Legislature.

Walt was not a fan of the idea. He ultimately accepted it as being necessary. His original plan DID NOT INCLUDE an MK style park.

[ChipnDale79]

Originally Posted by pilferk

WDW isn't much of a growth market. In other words...they've got your full vacation time accounted for. They've more or less maximized per capita guest spending. The only way they build something is if they think they can extend your stay, or increase per capita guest spending. I've yet to hear a plausible explanation as to how Cars Land at WDW would do either.

Right now, they've got pretty close to 7 days of your vacation filled at WDW. You have 2 half day parks..which, honestly, works to their advantage because it drives guest to other profit centers (water parks, restaurants, etc), and 2 "day and a half" (at least) parks. And, for the most part, they have their guests held hostage on property. In some cases because Disney was the sole method of transport to/from the airport. And in other cases because of the sheer size of the resort.

DLR, on the other hand, IS a growth market. They have spare hotel capacity, they have room to grow attendance numbers, and they have room to expand both per capita guest spending AND length of stay.

It's a market that makes much more sense for Disney to invest in.

They WANT it to be considered a destination. That's the point. That's why they put just over a billion dollars (and 750 million into Cars land) into what was essentially a new park. It wasn't doing the job they wanted it to do.

If it's TRULY popular at DCA, and it does what they've set it up to do (increase tourism), I'd actually say it's LESS likely to come to WDW. For exactly those reasons.

Sure Disney has got us at WDW, most of us plan at least a 7 day vacation to WDW and stay there the entire time. However, that doesn't mean they need to stop adding things to their resort, if don't invest in WDW then what happens? It runs the risk of getting stale.

Now is not the time for Disney to sit back and do nothing, reports are hotel occupancy at WDW are down along with Magical Express ridership. On top of that, another resort right down the street just added a major area of a theme park that is extremely successful. The other said resort is in the process of building another section of Harry Potter in it's other park and is getting ready to build a Transformers attraction. Disney can't just sit on their hands.

Something will happen at DHS, mark my words. I like the idea of Cars Land, I think its a great idea, however I would be just as happy if it was something else that is equally as good as Cars Land in DCA.


The United States is large enough to support two Disney Resorts, I personally think its extremely short sighted to believe that people from the East Coast are going to fly all the way over the the West Coast simply because of a DCA remake. An average flight per person from Charlotte, NC to LA nonstop, runs about $400, so for a family of 4, that's $1,600, not including baggage fees. No thanks, with all the fees associated with flying, it adds up to almost what a week at an All Star Resort cost. I'll spend less than a quarter of that on gas and drive the 8 hours to WDW.

[pilferk]

Originally Posted by Sweettears

Yes but he knew it was part of the project. How were they planning on supporting the development of EPCOT without a source of revenue?

Yes, he knew it was going to have to be part of the project (eventually).

He did not, originally, intend for it to be part of the project.

They were planning to support EPCOT as any city would support itself....though Walt rarely let thoughts of "funding" get in the way of what he thought was a good idea. That was Roy's job.