Announcement

Collapse

Your Assistance Please

We need your help to battle spammers and also to keep our community user friendly.
PLEASE BE KIND TO OTHERS - Refrain from personal attacks. Avoid politics and harsh language whenever possible. If someone is violating our simple rules, DO NOT confront them, simply report the post.
STOP SPAMMERS - Report the post. DO NOT respond to them.

2017 is a year of renewal for us, we have lots of exciting changes on the way for you, but we don't have time to deal with trolls and spammers. If you find yourself suspended and need to plead your case, you will need to do so after your suspension. We are happy to address your concerns if you made a simple mistake. However, please note that those with a history of bad behavior and pushing our rules to the limit will not be given the courtesy of a reply.

MiceChat offers a number of ways for you to communicate and get involved. We offer Facebook Groups and Pages, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest accounts. We have a front page filled with amazing content. We offer weekly meetups in the parks. Meets and events all over the world. Podcasts and videos. And we continue to maintain forums for your posting convenience. But with all those options, we can't be everywhere all the time. We need YOUR help. Please don't poke the trolls. Report posts and leave reputation. We'll do our best to keep the forums clean and active, but we can't do so without your help.

Thank you for your support folks, it's going to be a really fantastic year in the MiceChat world.
See more
See less

Spare No Expense?

Collapse

Ad Widget

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Spare No Expense?

    With all of the speculation, talk, discussion, what have you over Tomorrowland, I have been thinking, why does everything Disney creates have to cost so much. I started thinking about what things cost, materials, manpower, design process, etc. and I have a really hard time believing it should cost as much as Disney promotes it.

    For instance, when designing an attraction to build, Disney must take into effect a bunch of different factors. Among the most prominent...

    Reliability, one in a hundred million chance of breakdown.
    Guests per Hour, high capacity
    Creativity, original ideas

    Building an attraction that will be open as long as is required by Disneyland is not that difficult. Come on, it's California, the climate couldn't be better! Sure you have to make things earthquake protected but they've been doing that for decades. New technologies do come with quirks, but not every attraction Disney builds has to be a new technology.

    Look at TOT, similar drop rides in Ohio, Minnesota, and even down the block at Knott's go higher and operate more often. Yet those attractions did not cost over 50 million dollars. Now look at an actual hotel, with rooms, amenities, etc. they also do not cost over 50 million dollars, and TOT is not a fully functioning hotel. So with those in mind, why did it cost so much to build TOT.

    At Disneyland proper, look at the peoplemover. In essence, the track is made up of concrete pylons and steel reinforcements. Even a mile of track of that nature would be minimal cost at most. Add an actual track system, and you're talking about 10 million at the most. Now as long as Disney doesn't spend 400 dollars on every screw and unique quality steel from the furthest regions of Tibet, they can build a new peoplemover without a crippling investment.

    I guess the main point I'm getting at is, why does Disney always feel like the attractions they have to build necessitate the same budget as a space station! A tomb-raider type ride in a simple climate controlled building contracted through Home Depot with Imagineering Special Effects would enhance Tomorrowland, it may even bring in new guests. But overall, it would be a cost-effective way of adding new attractions. Other smaller parks can do it, why can't Disney?
    In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate.

    DoppelV

  • #2
    i think its the quality that costs the money. TOT may have cost more than a real hotel but think of all the machinery, surrounding work i.e. planting, the design cost and the depth of the theming. Look at a couple of the rides in DCA e.g. Mullholland Madness where disney has spent less on theming.

    Comment


    • #3
      You get what you pay for... Which is why Disney attractions are better than any other in the world. Look at theme, and how every ride has a story. Not true with Knott's or Six Flags. Disneyland spends 20,000 gallons of paint a year to keep things looking fresh, probably WAY more than that this year with good ol' Matt at the helm.

      Disney often builds unique attractions that have never been created, and so they must invent ways for them to be created. Look at how fluid animatronics are, what other company makes them look as real? When you get on a Disneyland ride, you never feel that things are cheap or half-assed. You get that feeling all the time at other parks (Kingdom of the Dinosaurs anyone?).

      Maintenance is another key issue. Anyway you cut it, Disney spends a GRIP on its attractions, and the quality shows...

      Comment

      Ad Widget

      Collapse
      Working...
      X