Concerning Disney leadership being "cheap"

Knux897

Earning My Ears
Joined
Apr 21, 2017
With rumors flying about that Epcot will become a second Magic Kingdom by stuffing IPs into it and betraying the educational mission of the park, I was curious to know more about how Disney leadership is acting. Stuffing IPs into the park feels cheap and doesn't possess the lasting appeal of classic attractions. It astounds me that Disney leadership considers Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion to be classics, but not Spaceship Earth, The Great Movie Ride, Universe of Energy, El Rio del Tiempo and Maelstrom. It seems it would be cheaper on their part to simply update the rides and sell them as Disney classics in the same way Magic Kingdom classics have, and it would still retain the integrity of the ideas each park is built on. I like Frozen Ever After, but it's almost insulting to stick that into a part of Epcot that was supposed to showcase Norway and its culture. The same with the Great Movie Ride, removing an attraction that is the epitome of what Hollywood Studios is about. With rumors of Coco, Ratatouille, Mary Poppins, Inside Out and Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Epcot, it seems the park will completely lose its identity. It seems a poor attempt at making a quick buck, as opposed to making a lasting Disney legacy. Even though I love Universal, they have always felt cheaper than Disney, replacing their classic attractions by stuffing in IPs, with Disney being on this same path.

I've also heard of numerous instances where Disney has cheaped out in other places, whether it be the type of soap used in resorts, the lack of desperately needed monorail tracks to DHS and DAK, or the lack of an update to the monorails themselves. I also noticed that on Navi River Journey, it's a ride where you can easily tell budget cuts were made. Why is there only one animatronic and the rest of the ride screens? I like the ride, but even slow moving animatronic animals would have sufficed to make it a much more interesting experience. Screens have their place in enhancing rides as they do in the Dinosaur refurb, but to rely on them, again feels cheap.

I've heard it was the case that the acquisition of Marvel influenced the culture of Disney leadership to act in this way, cheaping out on the experience. I don't know much about this and couldn't really find information on it. I was hoping that someone could give me some more background on this, or really just a general overview of why Disney has taken this turn. Is Bob Iger a factor and when he leaves, will this get better of worse? I'm looking for all information I can get my hands on if possible.
 
The monorail is not needed for DHS or AK. It was never meant to haul a massive load. And would cost millions of dollars a mile to build. Disney is wise to not try it, they are not being cheap.

And yeah, I don't consider the Universe of Energy to be a classic ride. Not at all. The Great Movie Ride is most likely to leave because of contract issues. And face it, the movies shown are for the most part outdated and the majority of guests can't relate to them. I'm 50 and while I know about Tarzan, I never saw the version referenced.

I'm sorry, but I always find it laughable at how people seem to think they know how to run the parks better than people with all of the knowledge of what it really takes to run the parks. It is always easy to view things from the outside and say do this or do that. When you don't have all of the info.
 
With rumors flying about that Epcot will become a second Magic Kingdom by stuffing IPs into it and betraying the educational mission of the park, I was curious to know more about how Disney leadership is acting. Stuffing IPs into the park feels cheap and doesn't possess the lasting appeal of classic attractions. It astounds me that Disney leadership considers Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion to be classics, but not Spaceship Earth, The Great Movie Ride, Universe of Energy, El Rio del Tiempo and Maelstrom. It seems it would be cheaper on their part to simply update the rides and sell them as Disney classics in the same way Magic Kingdom classics have, and it would still retain the integrity of the ideas each park is built on. I like Frozen Ever After, but it's almost insulting to stick that into a part of Epcot that was supposed to showcase Norway and its culture. The same with the Great Movie Ride, removing an attraction that is the epitome of what Hollywood Studios is about. With rumors of Coco, Ratatouille, Mary Poppins, Inside Out and Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Epcot, it seems the park will completely lose its identity. It seems a poor attempt at making a quick buck, as opposed to making a lasting Disney legacy. Even though I love Universal, they have always felt cheaper than Disney, replacing their classic attractions by stuffing in IPs, with Disney being on this same path.

I've also heard of numerous instances where Disney has cheaped out in other places, whether it be the type of soap used in resorts, the lack of desperately needed monorail tracks to DHS and DAK, or the lack of an update to the monorails themselves. I also noticed that on Navi River Journey, it's a ride where you can easily tell budget cuts were made. Why is there only one animatronic and the rest of the ride screens? I like the ride, but even slow moving animatronic animals would have sufficed to make it a much more interesting experience. Screens have their place in enhancing rides as they do in the Dinosaur refurb, but to rely on them, again feels cheap.

I've heard it was the case that the acquisition of Marvel influenced the culture of Disney leadership to act in this way, cheaping out on the experience. I don't know much about this and couldn't really find information on it. I was hoping that someone could give me some more background on this, or really just a general overview of why Disney has taken this turn. Is Bob Iger a factor and when he leaves, will this get better of worse? I'm looking for all information I can get my hands on if possible.
Check out the news and rumors forum. This has been discussed to a great extent there. Keep in mind that this is a Disney website and some will be that fan in all circumstances and of course some are overly critical too.
 
Last edited:
Walt Disney World cannot remain a museum piece (btw, neither can DL. Many original DL rides and attractions were replaced as well). We have classic rides. Carousel of Progress has a unique place in Disney history and it doesn't appear to be going anywhere. Not a big draw, yet WDW still pays to operate this attraction every day. it's a small world holds a similar place, yet, obviously, draws more guests.

The country of Norway decided not to continue sponsoring the Norway pavilion. If they aren't interested in showcasing their own country and culture, why should Disney stand by and miss an opportunity to draw more crowds to EP? Great Movie Ride is severely outdated as is Ellen's Universe of Energy. How is refurbishing or replacing these rides cheapening out when it will cost Disney more to do this than just to leave them as they are? I have heard no rumors of Spaceship Earth being replaced with anything. There will never be monorails to DHS and DAK. I'm not sure how building a gondola system from some values and a mod to the EP/DHS area is cheapening out?

When EP opened it was already far, far away from the original concept and Walt Disney himself was all about moving forward, creating new things and evolving. Notice when Walt was alive there were no Disney movie sequels? He was also interested in making money. He did very few projects that were not meant to be commercial (the Dali collaboration is the only one that really comes to mind). At the end of the day, Disney is a publicly traded company which has to answer to its shareholders and has to compete, in the theme park industry with Universal in Orlando. There's no way around it. They need to entice people into the parks, period, and they need to keep their stock price up (ESPN certainly isn't helping on that front). I also don't know how you can equate building Pandora, Star Wars Land and Toy Story Land as "cheapening" out?
 


One minor point...

Ratatouille (even though I didn't actually enjoy it) is not a cheap ride. Neither would it be totally out of place in the French Pavillion. It's a centerpeice of a whole land at DLP- a very well done land which is a huge money making draw for the parks there. That's the whole point of putting character stuff in Epcot. They want people to come and spend money in the gift shops. Stuff like pirates and haunted mansion still make a lot of money in terms of souvenirs. But the great movie ride? Not so much.

And as someone else mentioned- many of the rides that people consider "classic" are not classic at all. DL Splash, for example, is not only from '89, it was also a way to reuse some animatronics from an older attraction. So in that sense- nothing is new about remaking maelstrom into Frozen.
 


Some attractions definitely need to be changed. There will always be people that like certain ones and will be upset about the change, I think the majority of people will enjoy a different experience.
For example, my best friend loves the Great Movie Ride. Like loves it. As teachers, we took a large group of students to Disney this year. After riding ToT, Star Tours, TSM, and RnR repeatedly, seeing B&B and the Little Mermaid, and going shopping, she convinced the kids to ride GMR. I am not a fan, but I went. The kids absolutely hated it. They said it was a "snoozefest." While she loves it, the rest of us would rather see it be something else.

There are several other attractions like this.
Stitch comes to mind quickly.
 
Nothing in this world stays the same. While animatronics are good, how long will it take to change them out when changes or updates are needed? The subject of using screens came up. Toy Story Mania can be changed overnight so the attraction never goes down. Is that "cheapening" an attraction? I think it's enhancing it. I would not want a Toy Story Mania with only animatronics. But then again, there wouldn't be a Toy Story Mania without the advances Disney made in making those films.

I wouldn't say Disney is getting cheap on things - how do you keep up with the advances that are made in movies while at the parks?
 
I'm not at all against them getting rid of older rides/shows (well okay, except for Wishes... and...er... all the ones *I* like... ;) )

My concern is that the replacements generally seem to be sub-par or woefully out of place/concept. I don't want to see movie IP at Epcot. I think Frozen at the Norway pavilion is an abomination of the point of Epcot (which itself is an abomination of Walt's original vision but that's a whole other story). I think Guardians of the Galaxy in lieu of the Energy pavilion is... moronic. Science, knowledge, culture, exploration, learning (a dirty word to be sure) is what Epcot's all about - not shoveling ONE movie into a theme park and telling us what a great IP it is so we have to consume an entire land of it (aka Pandora land... and yes it's true - Harry Potter has a successful book SERIES and MOVIE SERIES behind it - Pandora has ONE movie and the promise of 3 more... maybe...). In fact, I daresay you could've made a better case for putting a Pandora exhibit into Epcot as a learning pavilion (which I'm sure James Cameron would've applauded).

I'm not even against GotG in Epcot per se - but even if it DOES promote some sort of actual science exhibit - It's gonna have an action ride which will detract from the whole thing.) "Hi I'm rocket and this is my pal Groot" "I am Groot" "Let me finish Groot. We're here to talk about Energy, like the kind that powers this here raygun of my own design!"

I understand the business logic and I understand that it will draw crowds into Epcot. I've seen Idiocracy, I know how this works... I just weep for what could've been.
 
You use the term "quick buck". First, there is nothing "quick" about what Disney does, and I don't just mean that in the "time it takes to build" sense. Take a look at Box Office Mojo and see which IPs have generated the vast majority of income for Disney over the past 20 years. Disney would be crazy not to incorporate as much of that as they legally can while they can. Remember that today's 20 year old has never paid to see a feature film in a theater starring Mickey, Donald or Pluto. If the future is to have any meaning to the company, it has to embrace the money-generating IPs of the past 20 years. How they squeeze that in is uncertain. But replacing attractions in Epcot that herald the Space Shuttle program and solar energy as "the future" is a start.
 
You use the term "quick buck". First, there is nothing "quick" about what Disney does, and I don't just mean that in the "time it takes to build" sense. Take a look at Box Office Mojo and see which IPs have generated the vast majority of income for Disney over the past 20 years. Disney would be crazy not to incorporate as much of that as they legally can while they can. Remember that today's 20 year old has never paid to see a feature film in a theater starring Mickey, Donald or Pluto. If the future is to have any meaning to the company, it has to embrace the money-generating IPs of the past 20 years. How they squeeze that in is uncertain. But replacing attractions in Epcot that herald the Space Shuttle program and solar energy as "the future" is a start.

Today's 30-something year old hasn't paid to see a Mickey Mouse movie either. We grew up with the lion king and beauty and the beast. I'd argue that both of those are the equivalent of Frozen today.

I don't really get the resistance to adding IP to Epcot. Right now, most people use Epcot as a food court. Disney needs to change that to make Epcot viable. Does anyone ever pay for a one day ticket to Epcot? I'm thinking not. I wouldn't go to Epcot except for illuminations and drinking around the world, and neither are good reasons to pay the admission price. It's a good reason to get a park hopper but that's about it. I'm wondering how many people Frozen specifically brought in- I bet it did bring in a bunch of families who would skip it otherwise.
 
With rumors flying about that Epcot will become a second Magic Kingdom by stuffing IPs into it and betraying the educational mission of the park, I was curious to know more about how Disney leadership is acting. Stuffing IPs into the park feels cheap and doesn't possess the lasting appeal of classic attractions. It astounds me that Disney leadership considers Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion to be classics, but not Spaceship Earth, The Great Movie Ride, Universe of Energy, El Rio del Tiempo and Maelstrom. It seems it would be cheaper on their part to simply update the rides and sell them as Disney classics in the same way Magic Kingdom classics have, and it would still retain the integrity of the ideas each park is built on. I like Frozen Ever After, but it's almost insulting to stick that into a part of Epcot that was supposed to showcase Norway and its culture. The same with the Great Movie Ride, removing an attraction that is the epitome of what Hollywood Studios is about. With rumors of Coco, Ratatouille, Mary Poppins, Inside Out and Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Epcot, it seems the park will completely lose its identity. It seems a poor attempt at making a quick buck, as opposed to making a lasting Disney legacy. Even though I love Universal, they have always felt cheaper than Disney, replacing their classic attractions by stuffing in IPs, with Disney being on this same path.

I've also heard of numerous instances where Disney has cheaped out in other places, whether it be the type of soap used in resorts, the lack of desperately needed monorail tracks to DHS and DAK, or the lack of an update to the monorails themselves. I also noticed that on Navi River Journey, it's a ride where you can easily tell budget cuts were made. Why is there only one animatronic and the rest of the ride screens? I like the ride, but even slow moving animatronic animals would have sufficed to make it a much more interesting experience. Screens have their place in enhancing rides as they do in the Dinosaur refurb, but to rely on them, again feels cheap.

I've heard it was the case that the acquisition of Marvel influenced the culture of Disney leadership to act in this way, cheaping out on the experience. I don't know much about this and couldn't really find information on it. I was hoping that someone could give me some more background on this, or really just a general overview of why Disney has taken this turn. Is Bob Iger a factor and when he leaves, will this get better of worse? I'm looking for all information I can get my hands on if possible.

Too much to address .....
..... it's a business and they will make business decisions to make money.

Disney will make changes to parks/attractions/hotels based on guest demand.

There is no way to make everyone happy.
 
Today's 30-something year old hasn't paid to see a Mickey Mouse movie either. We grew up with the lion king and beauty and the beast. I'd argue that both of those are the equivalent of Frozen today.
Exactly. And when Lion King and Beauty were added to the parks, no one complained. It simply had to be done. People just have to get used to the idea that Disney always has to capitalize on IP that is revenue driving. That means shifting away from older attractions that are mere afterthoughts to today's guests.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!










Top