Originally Posted by JasonMa
Also, the Disney Park fans are in general quite disappointed with how Walt Disney World has been run for the last 10 (more really) years. Disneyland Resort has done a good job focusing on what made Disney special, especially after the long California Adventure rehab/fixes, but WDW has been a bit of a mess. I'm not sure how much you want to pull form their current operation.
While this is true, I find the rest of your thesis to be suspect. Operating revenue is up ~6% year over year for the past five years, and net income has practically doubled in the same time frame. Paying attention to quarterly results is a terrible idea, and it needs to stop. It does more harm than good.
You're not going to be able to ride an Episode VII
or The Avengers
to the bank year in and year out.
ESPN remains a concern, but I don't know that it's a permanent anchor. ABC-Disney seems to be partnering with more and more streaming services to offer its channels and will eventually make up some of that subscriber base. More if they can eventually offer it as a standalone component or the new streaming cable services even out their pricing.
Overpaying for content for years has been a problem. General bloat too.
Cars 3 is going to move sofa king much merchandise.
Originally Posted by Joe Brody
Epic miss on Disney's part?
It has two
rides. Two. For me that's a problem.
As for an 'epic miss'? No, not yet. Avatar
& Pandora is Disney Parks direct answer to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, with a possibly bigger upside. Harry Potter is done. Fantastic Beasts
isn't as universally loved (I found it to be the best Potter movie to date), but it'll keep people pumping the turnstiles. If Cameron can convince audiences that Avatar
wasn't a glorified tech demo for a second and third time then whoever greenlit the project is going to look like a genius.
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
...but it remains an oddball choice for a park that was largely designed around representing the wildlife and natural environments of real-world places and the human culture surrounding them.
You forget the park was originally supposed to have a land dedicated to... fantastical beasts. Avatar
slots oddly into that spot, but it does fill part of that need. Its larger themes do otherwise work within the overall scheme. I think using Wakanda* would have worked as well and not required ponying up any extra cash to Cameron.
* - I recently had my hands on a copy of the contract between Marvel & Universal, and it looks like there are ways to add Marvel characters to the Florida parks. The primary tenant seems to be that they can't have been an Avenger. It rules out Black Panther from appearing (for now),
but I think Wakanda is fair game.