Spare No Expense?

[Soulquarian]

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...

[englishdfan]

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.

[DoppelV]

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?