The Potterverse is KILLING IT.

[bnoble]

2011 Park Attendance Guesstimates came out today. The Potterverse/IoA increased almost 30% in 2011---on top of a just-over-30% in 2010. IoA accounts for half of all North American attendance growth in 2011. As they say on college TV sports segments: boom goes the dynamite.

http://www.teaconnect.org/pdf/2011Report.pdf

[DoctorK]

yeah, we're gonna end up going next year. between an onsite hotel room (for two-days of Express pass access), two-day tickets and a rental car we wouldn't otherwise need, plus meals oop, it'll be an additional $700 or so for the two days. Well played, Universal.

[josh]

Just imagine if they build the Hogwart's Express between Universal and Islands of Adventure.

[DoctorK]

I worry for the children who will run head first into brick walls attempting to find the platform.

[loveysbydesign]

I worry for the children who will run head first into brick walls attempting to find the platform.

[bnoble]

Just imagine if they build the Hogwart's Express between Universal and Islands of Adventure.

And Gringotts on the Amity plot...

[DoctorK]

Frankly I think JK Rowlings really missed the boat. There could have *easily* been an entire Harry Potter theme park. There is no lack of venues that would lend themselves to entire themed worlds inside that theme park, from Hogwarts, Hogsmeade, Gringotts, the Burrow, Quidditch World Cup, Ministry of Magic, Forbidden Forest. If she had done it that way, she would have a workable blueprint to build similar theme parks around the world, much like Disney. And she would have made a ton more money and almost certainly produced a better product.

[pfalcioni]

I think that she initially was pushing for a complete park, but no one would front the money for it. I think I've read that she initially approached Disney (or they approached her) and they were in talks about having HP-land be a 5th gate in Florida, but Disney didn't think it would have the staying power to support a complete park over a period of time.

Universal then came up with their proposal, and showed her the complex and detailed design which didn't use a new gate but created a "park within a park" and she accepted this as the best possible option given the choices.

[bnoble]

There are lots of rumors floating around about whether or not Disney did or did not get very far in talks. One of the more plausible to me was that Disney was not willing to give JKR the degree of creative/operational control she required. For example, she insisted that no soft drinks other than butterbeer/pumpkin juice be sold anywhere in the Potterverse. And, while on the whole the new land turned out extremely well, it is also not particularly well-designed from a guest flow perspective---lessons that Disney learned way back with Disneyland's Adventureland.

On a semi-related note, it's not clear to me that WDW will ever build a fifth gate. The purpose of new gates is to increase length-of-stay. However, the average US vacation is already too short to take full advantage of the four they have, and is getting shorter not longer. Disney has been heavily marketing to overseas travel---and such folks tend to stay longer---but there's a limit even there. Instead, I expect them to continue to expand some of the gates they have. MK is getting a "capacity" expansion. Studios will probably get another solid family D-ticket or two to broaden its base. And, *something* needs to happen at AK to bump it up to a 'three meal park'---it's been getting there, but really needs another headliner to round out its offerings.

[josh]

I don't foresee a fifth park either. There is nothing really in development and certainly no plans to throw a few billion dollars at something in Lake Buena Vista (as far as I know). It seems to me like Disney is really missing out on the ages 13 - 30 demographic, which seems to be looking more and more at Universal Studios and other experiences. In reality, there is nothing to bring most 22 years olds to Walt Disney World and 15 year olds are more and more likely to roll their eyes when Mom announces another family vacation to Animal Kingdom. I am not sure why Disney doesn't install more roller coaster/thrill experiences in their parks. If you look at what Disney does have, it is generally the roller coasters and more thrill-y attractions that are the "most popular." Space, Big Thunder, Tower of Terror, Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, Everest, Test Track are what people want. This is obviously an over exaggeration, but no one wants another Little Mermaid dark ride. That isn't going to bring anybody to Magic Kingdom. Install a Spiderman like simulator, an awesome floorless roller coaster, and a next generation Soarin' attraction at Animal Kingdom and everyone would shut up about it being skippable. Add a nighttime show and you're golden. It would cost 800 million, but I can't imagine they wouldn't see their double digit returns on investment.

But with international attendance this strong, they really don't have to do anything. Frankly, they don't care if you or I return this year.

[pfalcioni]

Brian, that's logical regarding no 5th gate, I hadn't thought of it in the frame of average vacation time.

[DoctorK]

It seems to me like Disney is really missing out on the ages 13 - 30 demographic

They were on the right track before they reworked new fantasyland. Princess World would have really brought in the tweens/young adults! /sarcasm

[josh]

Yeah, they are just one Winnie the Pooh Meet and Greet away from real success. Luckily, it is under construction!

[bnoble]

It seems to me like Disney is really missing out on the ages 13 - 30 demographic

I'm not entirely sure that matters, and to the extent that it does matter, I don't think it is worth spending what they'd have to spend to fix it.

First, why it doesn't matter: College kids and young adults are, to put it bluntly, broke. They are not the folks who are going to be super-profitable. That leaves families with only teens, but not any younger kids. Such families are probably far outnumbered by families that also/only have younger kids. This is just a straight numbers question---it's only in the last five or so years of "having kids" that this is true. What's more, it's A LOT harder to travel with teens than with gradeschool/tween kids. School is harder to miss. Extracurricular activities start to crowd out anything else even when school is not in session. So, the total slice of profitable market they are "missing" probably isn't that big.

But, to even get there, they need to go *farther* than they have in the past. Of these:

Space, Big Thunder, Tower of Terror, Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, Everest, Test Track are what people want.

Only Tower and Everest even approach "interesting" from a teen's point of view---and even those aren't awesome compared to Serious Rides elsewhere. Maybe add Coaster, but only for the ride wimps. I can tell you that as a teen, I thought Thunder was nothing better than a boring old Mine Train ride, which you can find anywhere. I wasn't about to waste my time riding it. Test Track: 60mph in a convertible? That's supposed to get me excited?

No, to really get traction in the teen/young adult/thrillseeking market, it means building things that their current demographic doesn't want or care about. For example, they had to neuter half of Mission:Space just to keep its ridership numbers above "utterly embarrassing". So, I agree with this sentiment, but not all of it:

Install a Spiderman like simulator, an awesome floorless roller coaster, and a next generation Soarin' attraction at Animal Kingdom and everyone would shut up about it being skippable.

The floorless is probably a mistake given the current guest mix. But, just one floorless is not enough to change it. My daughter would still not pick AK over Sea World, because Manta + Kracken (mostly Manta) still beats Everest + random-B&M-floorless-du-jour, even though Kracken is a relatively forceless example of the genre. You'd need to add another solid coaster or two to make that swing. And, put either SW or AK+floorless against IoA, with FJ, the Dragons, Hulk, and Doom? Not even in the same league.

So, I *do* agree that a Big Spend on AK makes a lot of sense. (And, I think that's exactly what Pandora will be.) But, I think it makes sense only within the "thrill envelope" of the current attraction mix---and that's not enough to tip the 13-30 market.

[pfalcioni]

Even though I am a thrill-ride junkie, and the only thing on Disney property that even gives me a moderate adrenaline rush is ToT, I am firmly in the camp of keeping Disney rides more middle-of-the road in terms of thrill factor for a few reasons:

First, Disney is well respected for being a place where the entire family, from the toddler to grandma can experience many of the rides together. Because of this, people aren't expecting ShieKra-like thrills. I think this was the main problem with the first iteration of Mission: Space, no one would have batted an eye if it was installed at any other theme park, and no one would have complained that it was too intense. I think timid folks (or those with any physical problems that can be aggravated by rides) go in to other Theme Parks with the opinion that they will carefully read and think about a ride before deciding to join the line. At Disney parks, most assume "it's Disney, how bad can it be?"

Secondly, when the focus turns away from theming and overall immersion in a fantasy world, and towards thrill rides, then you lose the "come back every year for the rest of our lives" mentality for many guests. At Disney (and now HP land and to a lesser extent some other sections of Universal) even when you're not on a ride, the experience of walking around an area and having every thing you see, smell, and hear fit the theme and create a totally immersive experience that is really difficult to find any place else.

We've not gone to either of the Florida Universal parks yet because my DH has motion sickness and there are very few rides at Universal that wouldn't be a problem for him. Some are frustratingly close to working, but Universal has "plussed" the ride with a gimmick that makes it impossible for him to enjoy, like Men In Black and its random car spin. Disney realizes there's enough people out there who have issues with spinning that they create most of their rides to work for those people, while still having enough of an "out of control" feeling to make the rest of us laugh - like Midway Mania, the cars whip around quickly, but you can anticipate it happening, and see where you're headed, so no problem. Buzz Lightyear allows people who like to spin to do so to their heart's content, while others can simply steer where they want without the spin-n-puke action.

Sure, there are some rides at WDW that DH can't ride (Space Mountain, etc), but they are the exception rather than the rule. Same with height limitations - even though there are rides out there that the younger set has to wait to experience, there's also plenty of great rides that have no height limitations, so the kids aren't just stuck in one small "Kiddie" section of the park with a few flat rides and a carousel (like Knotts Berry Farm and others).

Sorry to be so wordy, but I really hope Disney doesn't give in to pressure and start upping the ride intensity. I'm worried about Avatar-land in that regard, well also because I think the whole idea sucks big eggs, but that's a gripe for another topic.

[bnoble]

I'm worried about Avatar-land in that regard

I'm not. I'm fully expecting something like Soarin++, possibly with smaller ride vehicles through an environment like Forbidden Journey, but with less swoop-and-swoosh/spiders-in-your-face.

I think the whole idea sucks big eggs

Go back and watch the movie. Skip the battle scenes, and anything with human dialog. Watch the "getting to know Pandora" bits. Imagine *being* in that world.

I bet you'll find it more intriguing.

Edited to add: my recollection was that Universal had an exclusive window on the Kuka arms for theme park ride applications. But, that clearly isn't true, or it has already expired, because Sum of All Thrills uses them. I'll bet the Kuka shows up in Pandora too---but on a track, as with Potter, though with a much less physically-dynamic ride profile.

[pfalcioni]

There are many virtual worlds that I really would love to explore, but for some reason, Pandora isn't one of them. I'm a sci-fi and fantasy freak from way back, so I should have been one of the fangirlz of Avatar, but no. I liked the movie, but it didn't stick with me for days and years like other stories. I'd like to visit Robert Siverburg's Majipoor, Anne McAffrey's Pern, and most of all Piers Anthony's Xanth - which seems like an excellent fit for a Florida theme park, since it's sort of situated there in the first place!

Oh, and I almost forgot, a franchise that DW already has put on film - what about Narnia??? I mean, Voyage of the Dawn Treader would make a very cool dark ride. Oooh, and imagine how eerie and spooky a trip through Underland would be? Tons of wonderful things to explore here.

[bnoble]

Narnia? If it hadn't been such a box office dog, maybe. But, the first one underperformed, and each one was worse. They even sold off the rights to the rest of the series, IIRC.

In contrast there were people who wanted to live on Pandora, and were sad they couldn't. (!)
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-11/e...?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

Again, I admit---I've got the contrarian view on Pandoraland. But, I think Iger is crazy like a fox...and between Rohde and Cameron, they'll make something that the People Dig.

Edited to add---as long as they pour the foundation properly, that is. /discoyeti

[pfalcioni]

They sold it off, really? Well, rats.

I really didn't like the movies that much, but the books themselves have done decently well over the years, selling more than 100 million copies all over the world. I'm decently certain that more kids have read the books (or at least a few of them) and are familiar with the characters and locations - probably more so than they are with many of the fairy tales that Disney gleans many of their characters and rides from.

[bnoble]

Well, they never owned it outright, but they terminated their partnership with Walden after Caspian.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cle-of-narnia/

And, Voyage went on to do what Disney expected---finish worse than Caspian. But, I was wrong about the first one. Almost $300M is a pretty nice take.
http://boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=narnia