Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah. Then again, I know that that specific chain got mentioned recently, but I don't know if it was for a US location or not.
I don't think it was. WB Movie World is in Gold Coast, Australia like in OTL but we'll see if they are going to use it as a working studio. I doubt they could use their Six Flags locations as such and I hope that they don't, in my opinion.

WB taking on Universal and Disney by making a new theme park in Orlando (WB Movie World Orlando?) does sound like a sound strategy, since they have the IPs from Looney Tunes and Nickelodeon to make it worthwhile. Hopefully that happens since having a park dedicated to Nickelodeon seems so awesome in paper.
 
TBH, the simplest thing that WB could do for a theme park would be to rebrand a Six Flag park.

Honestly, at least one might decide going to Florida for the WB World may not be a wise idea, so they look elsewhere for locations. How about Texas, for instance?

Also, not to spoil anything, but Godzilla won't be at the house of mouse here....
 
Last edited:
Is anything planned for the Olympics?
Some muppets v. toons friendly sporting events could be fun.
If they have the lead time maybe a few new How to... shorts with Goofy.
 
TBH, the simplest thing that WB could do for a theme park would be to rebrand a Six Flag park.

Honestly, at least one might decide going to Florida for the WB World may not be a wise idea, so they look elsewhere for locations. How about Texas, for instance?
I can't find the info on Wiki, but I know from personal experience that Six Flags Over Texas had a deal with WB in the early to mid 90s. There was some sort of Batman-themed stunt show, but I don't remember much except how tacky it was. Catwoman spent much of the show posing like a fashion model, instead of... you know, fighting? And the breakaway table refused to break on cue; at least three tries before it worked.
 
Is anything planned for the Olympics?
Some muppets v. toons friendly sporting events could be fun.
If they have the lead time maybe a few new How to... shorts with Goofy.
I think that concept sounds better suited for a mockumentary. Maybe we can have Figment narrate a story on the first competition of this sort between the Muppets and the Sensations. Maybe even in the same universe as Roger Rabbit, perhaps?
(DISCLAIMER: The "Sensations" are the team name for Mickey and the gang, as a reference to the group name "The Sensational Six".)

The new "How To..." shorts, however, are an easier thing to accomplish in this modern era.
 
TBH, the simplest thing that WB could do for a theme park would be to rebrand a Six Flag park.
It'd be the simplest solution, but not necessarily the best one as people have a clear understanding of the Six Flags brand and trying to adjust what is essentially a thrill amusement park into a studio is both difficult and unnecessary, in my opinion. Don't try to fix what ain't broke.

Honestly, at least one might decide going to Florida for the WB World may not be a wise idea, so they look elsewhere for locations. How about Texas, for instance?
As for WB taking on Universal/Disney in Orlando, it's not as bad of a investment. Universal Studios Florida is weaker ITTL since Warner Bros. has effectively robbed them of Nickelodeon Studios while Hanna-Barbera might be harder to acquire from Columbia, leaving them with their own lineup or Triad's IPs (which WB could easily acquire the theme park rights to). If WB opened up their own Movie World as a competitor to Universal with their own IPs and Nickelodeon, it's possible that they could find even more success compared to their rival once they know their park in the Gold Coast is a profitable theme park model to go by.

Also, not to spoil anything, but Godzilla won't be at the house of mouse here....
Wasn't Godzilla confirmed to be a Universal film? Honestly they need that IP for USF anyways, as that's something that Disney or WB can't provide with their current IPs.
 
Meta-Discussion: How Much does a Park Cost?
Meta-Discussion: How Much does a Park Cost, Anyway?

So, with this timeline’s Disney now involved in building (or preparing to build) three parks of various sizes and yet another new EPCOT pavilion, the natural question to ask is “how does Disney pay for this all?” Clearly Disney is better off than in our timeline at this point thanks to Henson kickstarting the Renaissance earlier on top of the as-per-our timeline changes to the parks and operations by Frank Wells, but is it enough to pay for all of this?

Disney_Dollar.png

It’s not like you can just print your own money, right?

Well, yes and no. Disney Studios has probably brought in about three-quarters of a billion dollars more than in our timeline (I’m not familiar enough with the costs of distribution and how profits are shared with investors to make a fully accurate estimate), but they’re also spending more on new productions and new investments in computer technology and effects (with the Imagine, Inc., computers also bringing in income). Also, the parks have probably brought in roughly the equivalent of our timeline in the same span plus perhaps up to 5-10% more due to the popular new attractions and merch for franchises from this timeline like Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Marvel, Totoro, and Thomas. Again, I’m only roughly estimating here. I never claimed to be an economist.

Let’s call it roughly $850 million more in profits than in our timeline.

By the early 1990s in our timeline, Disney had built EuroDisney to the tune of $5.2 billion total (originally budgeted for $1.1 billion) with a $700 million loan and $400 million to support the costs of infrastructure[1] provided by the French Government). But with France footing much of the costs, Disney likely spent about 25% of this total, or roughly $1.3 billion out of pocket. The park itself (technically the dedicated company that operated it) was saddled with over $4 billion in debt right out of the gate, though, which along with lower-than-expected visitor numbers (the proximity to Paris led Disney planners to extremely optimistic attendance predictions) put EuroDisney on the verge of bankruptcy right from opening day, requiring Disney to sell off much of their stake in EuroDisney to a third-party investor and invest more money into improvements in order to stave off failure.

Disney by this point in our timeline had also built Disney-MGM Studios at the cost of $500 million, and Typhoon Lagoon for a mere $2.14 million. Pleasure Island’s costs I can’t find, but I estimate it cost roughly $5-20 million all said. They later spent $1.1 billion on Disney’s California Adventure (originally budgeted at $600 million).

They built one new World Showcase pavilion (Morocco) and the Living Seas and Wonders of Life Pavilions, each of which cost an average of $200 million (roughly the average cost of an EPCOT pavilion, + or - $50 million), with some of it covered by the national or corporate sponsor (GE paid a reported $50 million to help build Horizons). Call it $150 million total each for Disney.

Total Disney parks investment from our timeline by the mid-1990s was thus just over $3.4 billion, and with EuroDisney about $4 billion in debt from the start.

Now, in this timeline Disney is building Disneyland Valencia, ultimately to cost about $3.5 billion, and in this case the Spanish Government has shared 33% of the costs, given the land for free (and property tax free for several years), and is taking advantage of the $800 million per year in EEC “Cohesion” funds for infrastructure to cover all of the roads, rail, port expansions, and some of the utilities and wetlands protections. But in this case Disney has absorbed more of the cost since Spain is far less rich than France in 1988-1992, and thus Disney has absorbed roughly $1.8 billion in debt. They will hypothetically make more profit in this arrangement than with EuroDisney since 1) they own more of the park and 2) the operating costs are lower thanks to cheaper labor and less debt carried by the park itself, but the debt on Disney is considerable.

Disney in this timeline also built Typhoon Lagoon, albeit spending a total of $3.5 million to make it grander and more immersive. They’ve built two World Showcase pavilions (Israel and Morocco) and the Living Seas, Living Body, and Entertainment EPCOT Pavilions, each of which will cost Disney an average of $150 million when the national or corporate sponsorship is accounted for.

They’re also building Disneytown, Philadelphia. Based on the costs of similar sized projects (e.g. Sesame Place), I estimate that it will cost around $25 million to build. Depending on the location (many will repurpose existing structures) future Disneytowns will average $10-30 million to build.

Port Disney and DisneySea at Long Beach, CA, were together projected to cost $2.8 billion total.

Altogether, assuming that DisneySea stays within predicted costs, this ends up costing Disney roughly $4.8 billion, which when combined with the roughly $850 million more in profits compared to in our timeline is a net $400 million more debt burden than Disney had at this point in our timeline. Not enough to cause real difficulty for a multi-billion-dollar company, but less than optimal to say the least.

All stuff to keep in the back of your mind going forward.

For additional reference, in our timeline Disney’s Animal Kingdom cost $600-800 million in 1995, DisneySea Japan cost about $2.2 billion in 2001, and Hong Kong Disneyland, which required extensive land reclamation in an area where land and labor is already ludicrously expensive, cost a whopping $3.5 billion by some estimates, with the taxpayers of Hong Kong covering much of it. And WestCOT, for further reference, was projected to cost $2.5-3.2 billion, depending on the plan used.

Let the wild speculations begin!



[1] Includes France’s promise to construct a TGV stop at the Resort’s front entrance and to expand the A-4 freeway.
 
So they have a few debts and costs, but this should be structured as long term debt I would have thought and thus be paid over over years oif not decades. The debt will be finely calculated against income and I doubt any planner will not build in contingency funds.

Valencia’s debt is nothing compared to EuroDisney’s- I suspect they will do fine- after some years that is.

Like all Corps Disney will have some rough periods, and unfortunately some restructuring at some point, it is part of the cycle.
 
Disney is arguably taking riskier endeavors with doing 2 extremely expensive theme parks back to back (DisneySea is already the most expensive theme park in the world with prices close to $4-5 billion dollars, beating out OTL Tokyo DisneySea by a long shot), but also the possibility for even greater rewards once both parks are opened.

Even if Disney comes out fine or even thrives after the success of both parks, there comes a point where even Disney would have to admit that they spent TOO much money on a theme park, much less two of them. I reckon that ITTL Imagineers would say that "Yeah, we spent too much money." with Valencia and DisneySea respectively in The Imagineering Story, with the two of them being the bar at which Imagineers and Disney Execs would have to compare whenever they do new projects after 94, in a never-again kind of scenario, especially DisneySea.

It's interesting to speculate that the I-Works could actually curtail their ambitions not because of catatrophic failure but because they were too successful at bringing lands to life (lands that probably exceed everything Disney/Universal has done OTL in terms of theming and immersion), only to find out the enormous price tags that came along with it. The I-Works would probably try to reach a similar level of detail, but be more methodical and efficient in future theme park projects in order to bring costs down.
 
Disney is arguably taking riskier endeavors with doing 2 extremely expensive theme parks back to back (DisneySea is already the most expensive theme park in the world with prices close to $4-5 billion dollars, beating out OTL Tokyo DisneySea by a long shot), but also the possibility for even greater rewards once both parks are opened.

Even if Disney comes out fine or even thrives after the success of both parks, there comes a point where even Disney would have to admit that they spent TOO much money on a theme park, much less two of them. I reckon that ITTL Imagineers would say that "Yeah, we spent too much money." with Valencia and DisneySea respectively in The Imagineering Story, with the two of them being the bar at which Imagineers and Disney Execs would have to compare whenever they do new projects after 94, in a never-again kind of scenario, especially DisneySea.

It's interesting to speculate that the I-Works could actually curtail their ambitions not because of catatrophic failure but because they were too successful at bringing lands to life (lands that probably exceed everything Disney/Universal has done OTL in terms of theming and immersion), only to find out the enormous price tags that came along with it. The I-Works would probably try to reach a similar level of detail, but be more methodical and efficient in future theme park projects in order to bring costs down.
The Imagineers could learn from this and build smaller parks that feature the same standard of quality but lower prices. Basically doing California Adventure the right way. One of the reasons the smaller Disney parks failed was because they were parks made for cheap in the wake of EuroDisney's failure. Disney parks can be many things. Cheap is not one of them.
 
The Imagineers could learn from this and build smaller parks that feature the same standard of quality but lower prices. Basically doing California Adventure the right way. One of the reasons the smaller Disney parks failed was because they were parks made for cheap in the wake of EuroDisney's failure. Disney parks can be many things. Cheap is not one of them.
You could arguably say they're learning a lot about stuffing detail in a smaller scale with the Disneytown project, so the expertise is going to be there once they move away from the rampant "Blue Sky" phase of Imagineering.

California Adventure is not a good comparison for this Disney, in my opinion, being a fundamentally flawed park that is blatantly cheap and focuses heavily on retail and dining, courtesy of Paul Pressler and Michael Eisner. Instead, I see WESTCOT as a more accurate model for a "downsized" Disney experience, as they're not afraid to take on $2-3 billion projects without the financial baggage of Euro Disneyland and the decline of creatives in Imagineering.

They're just not going to blow over the budget again.
 
Last edited:
With Eisner at ABC-Hollywood, and no word on Pressler, it does seem likely that we won't see California Adventure as we know it.
No, we won't. California Adventure is pretty much butterflied away with the announcement of DisneySea, which is a far better second gate by a mile. Still, I do have personal memories of the place, so it's always painful when they are butterflied away in a timeline like this.

As for Paul Pressler, I think he would actually be in the Disney Stores management ITTL since he was hired around 86 or 87, although it's unlikely that he will dive into the theme park side of things aside from the Disneytowns. Not bad of a career, if I do have to say so myself.
 
So they have a few debts and costs, but this should be structured as long term debt I would have thought and thus be paid over over years oif not decades. The debt will be finely calculated against income and I doubt any planner will not build in contingency funds.

Valencia’s debt is nothing compared to EuroDisney’s- I suspect they will do fine- after some years that is.

Like all Corps Disney will have some rough periods, and unfortunately some restructuring at some point, it is part of the cycle.
Disney is arguably taking riskier endeavors with doing 2 extremely expensive theme parks back to back (DisneySea is already the most expensive theme park in the world with prices close to $4-5 billion dollars, beating out OTL Tokyo DisneySea by a long shot), but also the possibility for even greater rewards once both parks are opened.

Even if Disney comes out fine or even thrives after the success of both parks, there comes a point where even Disney would have to admit that they spent TOO much money on a theme park, much less two of them. I reckon that ITTL Imagineers would say that "Yeah, we spent too much money." with Valencia and DisneySea respectively in The Imagineering Story, with the two of them being the bar at which Imagineers and Disney Execs would have to compare whenever they do new projects after 94, in a never-again kind of scenario, especially DisneySea.

It's interesting to speculate that the I-Works could actually curtail their ambitions not because of catatrophic failure but because they were too successful at bringing lands to life (lands that probably exceed everything Disney/Universal has done OTL in terms of theming and immersion), only to find out the enormous price tags that came along with it. The I-Works would probably try to reach a similar level of detail, but be more methodical and efficient in future theme park projects in order to bring costs down.
Valencia is on fairly good fiscal footing out of the gate, but still causing investors to get nervous. Compare this to OTL where the attitude was "What if EuroDisney is too much of a success?!?" And after DisneySea and DV it will definitely be time to look for less exorbitant options.

There's always Disneytown for this kind of small scale stuff.
You could arguably say they're learning a lot about stuffing detail in a smaller scale with the Disneytown project, so the expertise is going to be there once they move away from the rampant "Blue Sky" phase of Imagineering.
I'll be getting to Disneytowns soon, and yea, they're far smaller than even DCA, a small local park and shopping experience with some modest rides and a few shows and "experiences". But they are indeed a great incubator for finding fun user experiences that cost less.

The Imagineers could learn from this and build smaller parks that feature the same standard of quality but lower prices. Basically doing California Adventure the right way. One of the reasons the smaller Disney parks failed was because they were parks made for cheap in the wake of EuroDisney's failure. Disney parks can be many things. Cheap is not one of them.
California Adventure is not a good comparison for this Disney, in my opinion, being a fundamentally flawed park that is blatantly cheap and focuses heavily on retail and dining, courtesy of Paul Pressler and Michael Eisner. Instead, I see WESTCOT as a more accurate model for a "downsized" Disney experience, as they're not afraid to take on $2-3 billion projects without the financial baggage of Euro Disneyland and the decline of creatives in Imagineering.

They're just not going to blow over the budget again.
Yeah, if you're going to put the Disney Store boss in charge of a park, don't be surprised if he runs it exactly like he would the Disney Store.
With Eisner at ABC-Hollywood, and no word on Pressler, it does seem likely that we won't see California Adventure as we know it.
No, we won't. California Adventure is pretty much butterflied away with the announcement of DisneySea, which is a far better second gate by a mile. Still, I do have personal memories of the place, so it's always painful when they are butterflied away in a timeline like this.

As for Paul Pressler, I think he would actually be in the Disney Stores management ITTL since he was hired around 86 or 87, although it's unlikely that he will dive into the theme park side of things aside from the Disneytowns. Not bad of a career, if I do have to say so myself.
I've always said that "thrifty" buys off-brand toilet paper while "cheap" rinses out the sheets for reuse. Pressler definitely veered into "cheap" IMO. He did exactly what he was hired and appointed to do, of course, which speaks to the values of Disney management IOTL.

From Wiki: "At Disneyland, Pressler was known for cost-cutting measures such as reducing customer service training, having workers wash their own uniforms and closing rides and shows early. He attempted to discontinue a disabled discount but was forced to back off after backlash. With the cost cutting, Disneyland was profitable while attendance declined."

That's all cheap thinking, IMO. Let's shave a few bucks by screwing our customers and employees. I can't see him fitting in or getting promoted in this TL's Disney. Totally different corporate values.

Pressler will not be working at Disney ITTL. He was hired into Disney Consumer Products in 1987 IOTL. ITTL he'll take the job at Mattel instead.
 
Is there ways Disney parks can save money like bulk ordering stationary, investing in early networking/email for memos, solar and wind power, less duplicate staff roles, trimming middle management, or things like perhaps cheaper food/drink to drive demand up?
 
Is there ways Disney parks can save money like bulk ordering stationary, investing in early networking/email for memos, solar and wind power, less duplicate staff roles, trimming middle management, or things like perhaps cheaper food/drink to drive demand up?
I'm reminded of an old ad where a middle manager at an olive canning company felt so smart when he realized he could save the company a million dollars a year by putting one less olive in each jar. Then the IT guy saved the company tens of millions per year by upgrading the IT system hardware. There are generally options that can be exhausted before you start sacrificing user experience, in my experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top