Tiana's Bayou Adventure (Now Open)

[Nick]

Yes, I remember this as well. I'm expecting a 2nd part to it haha

I'm not. Not anytime soon at least. The parks have been closed for almost 4 months and Disney's about to release a pretty bloody Earnings report early next month (probably one of the worst in company history). They'll take money any way they can get it.

 

[TheGentTrent]

What is the price on that bear normally? $65.??

If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably close to $35.

 

[shiekra38]

I'm not. Not anytime soon at least. The parks have been closed for almost 4 months and Disney's about to release a pretty bloody Earnings report early next month (probably one of the worst in company history). They'll take money any way they can get it.

Gotta make up that lost revenue in Splash Mountain snow globes

 

[Jerroddragon]

Song of the South Merch Helps Disney stay profitable in Third Quarter......yeah sure that's a headline Disney wants right now

 

[Nick]

Song of the South Merch Helps Disney stay profitable in Third Quarter......yeah sure that's a headline Disney wants right now

Except they would never come out with detailed information like that at an earnings call.

 

[Jerroddragon]

Except they would never come out with detailed information like that at an earnings call.

I know more of a joke and I doubt they have enough Splash stuff to make a real profit....it will make them money but still not as much as normal days when they can have three times the people in the parks...and not even all parks/hotels are open.

 

[Nick]

I know more of a joke and I doubt they have enough Splash stuff to make a real profit....it will make them money but still not as much as normal days when they can have three times the people in the parks...and not even all parks/hotels are open.

Well I took it half jokingly at the very least as there's no way Disney Parks are profitable as long as COVID is still strong in Florida, Disneyland remains closed and they are running at reduced capacity and (more importantly) reduced demand. Just like Universal, they will be losing money by simply opening the parks, but in order to regain profitability, they have to first reopen.

 

[Andysol]

I run a small telegram group that has a few resellers or guys who participate in buying groups (one that runs one). They look at it as somewhat of a service too- if you want something, it’s going to cost you.

Yes, it cost them $65 for the bear. But you didn’t have to go in a car or plane, wait in line, go to shop, wait in line, get back in car or plane. What’s that time worth? $10-20? Truth is, whatever the market bares.

While they didn’t spend their time on plushies; things like Switches were huge with these groups. Theyd share some PMs they Would get and people would lose their minds at the markup. Say a switch is $300 and they’d be selling for $400. People would offer $300 because “that’s what it is at target” (completely disregarding tax and time). And the fireworks would commence. Some would say it’s illegal during a pandemic. Masks? Yes. Switches? You’ll live

Anyway, I could never be bothered with it, but considering I was on a zoom call with a few of the guys and one had 9 deep freezers in his background in his garage, it’s quite lucrative. He currently has over $130k in inventory.

sewing machines, switches, freezers, bikes, exercise equipment, etc have all been huge sellers for them. Even supply line holdups like vacuum cleaners have done decent.

 

[Nick]

I run a small telegram group that has a few resellers or guys who participate in buying groups (one that runs one). They look at it as somewhat of a service too- if you want something, it’s going to cost you.

Yes, it cost them $65 for the bear. But you didn’t have to go in a car or plane, wait in line, go to shop, wait in line, get back in car or plane. What’s that time worth? $10-20? Truth is, whatever the market bares.

While they didn’t spend their time on plushies; things like Switches were huge with these groups. Theyd share some PMs they Would get and people would lose their minds at the markup. Say a switch is $300 and they’d be selling for $400. People would offer $300 because “that’s what it is at target” (completely disregarding tax and time). And the fireworks would commence. Some would say it’s illegal during a pandemic. Masks? Yes. Switches? You’ll live

Anyway, I could never be bothered with it, but considering I was on a zoom call with a few of the guys and one had 9 deep freezers in his background in his garage, it’s quite lucrative. He currently has over $130k in inventory.

sewing machines, switches, freezers, bikes, exercise equipment, etc have all been huge sellers for them. Even supply line holdups like vacuum cleaners have done decent.

I also have a friend who I commend for his continued hustle. He brings in about $20K/month (or more) by simply going to places like ross or the Nike outlets (any outlet would work, but the Nike outlet is a particularly lucrative one for him). He buys old NBA jerseys and shoes there at a steep discount (say if a player gets traded from a team) and he sells them for full market price. I can't knock that hustle.

 

[Jerroddragon]

Not to get too off topic but since this is the only thread about Splash

I do have a question that popped into my head....so Disney is fine with Hamilton making fantasy out of history...but Walt's fantasy of the south after the war is not fine? Like both story's are fake and aren't suppose to be 100% real. So why is it ok to white wash/change History in one way but not another?

Not trying to attack anyone more of just a question of why is it ok sometimes?

 

[Clive]

Not to get too off topic but since this is the only thread about Splash

I do have a question that popped into my head....so Disney is fine with Hamilton making fantasy out of history...but Walt's fantasy of the south after the war is not fine? Like both story's are fake and aren't suppose to be 100% real. So why is it ok to white wash/change History in one way but not another?

Not trying to attack anyone more of just a question of why is it ok sometimes?

Let's... not go down this road. The film romanticizes antebellum America in a way that posits former slaves were subservient and pleased to stick around their former master's plantations. That is inherently racially insensitive, at best, in a way Hamilton never even approaches. (This is not an invitation for further debate. That's what it is.)

It is worth interrogating the strengths and weaknesses of Hamilton's approach (this is not the thread for it), but that work filters the actions of wealthy, white, largely racist men through the people of color they might have enslaved had they lived then. It is in some ways a reclaiming and reframing of a story, and yes, there are drawbacks to this choice, but this is not the thread for it.

 

[shiekra38]

Let's... not go down this road. The film romanticizes antebellum America in a way that posits former slaves were subservient and pleased to stick around their former master's plantations. That is inherently racially insensitive, at best, in a way Hamilton never even approaches. (This is not an invitation for further debate. That's what it is.)

It is worth interrogating the strengths and weaknesses of Hamilton's approach (this is not the thread for it), but that work filters the actions of wealthy, white, largely racist men through the people of color they might have enslaved had they lived then. It is in some ways a reclaiming and reframing of a story, and yes, there are drawbacks to this choice, but this is not the thread for it.

Honestly, I just hate seeing theater kids happy

 

[belloq87]

Josh D'Amaro speaks on the matter:

"We actually have been working on it for well over a year. In fact, I was a part of those conversations over a year ago. Listen, our stories evolve all the time. I mean, back from when Walt started Disneyland back in 1955, he stated that if we would continue to evolve our stories, that they're never ending, that they'll always be contemporary. And I think that that's what you're seeing with Splash Mountain.

I keep using the same word, but I'm really proud of this team and what we're doing on this front. I think Splash Mountain, no doubt, is a sacred attraction to many of our guests. And I think you're going to love what we're doing in making the attraction even more contemporary."

Make if it what you will. It is somewhat telling that -- every time they need to justify making a change -- they drag out some variation of something Walt Disney said once (in contexts that aren't really reflective of what he likely meant).

The "you're going to love what's coming" is the standard operating procedure when talking about replacing a beloved attraction (I still remember Universal's statement announcing Jaws was going away, and it was very similar). But if "making it more contemporary" means significantly fewer animatronics, it's going to be difficult for me to "love" it.

 

[Jerroddragon]

Josh D'Amaro speaks on the matter:

"We actually have been working on it for well over a year. In fact, I was a part of those conversations over a year ago. Listen, our stories evolve all the time. I mean, back from when Walt started Disneyland back in 1955, he stated that if we would continue to evolve our stories, that they're never ending, that they'll always be contemporary. And I think that that's what you're seeing with Splash Mountain.

I keep using the same word, but I'm really proud of this team and what we're doing on this front. I think Splash Mountain, no doubt, is a sacred attraction to many of our guests. And I think you're going to love what we're doing in making the attraction even more contemporary."

Make if it what you will. It is somewhat telling that -- every time they need to justify making a change -- they drag out some variation of something Walt Disney said once (in contexts that aren't really reflective of what he likely meant).

The "you're going to love what's coming" is the standard operating procedure when talking about replacing a beloved attraction (I still remember Universal's statement announcing Jaws was going away, and it was very similar). But if "making it more contemporary" means significantly fewer animatronics, it's going to be difficult for me to "love" it.

In both cases....its hard to know if its better...but I can tell you Harry Potter brought in a ton more people than Jaws Ever did.

Like I know some Universal fans do not like Harry Potter (and maybe one day Nintendo) but these IP's are huge and bigger than and I'd argue better than anything Universal has....only you want Minion/fast and furious rides instead I think we are getting a hell of a deal because both Nintendoland/Harry Potters lands are the most detailed lands Universal have EVER made.

 

[JawsVictim]

In both cases....its hard to know if its better...but I can tell you Harry Potter brought in a ton more people than Jaws Ever did.

Like I know some Universal fans do not like Harry Potter (and maybe one day Nintendo) but these IP's are huge and bigger than and I'd argue better than anything Universal has....only you want Minion/fast and furious rides instead I think we are getting a hell of a deal because both Nintendoland/Harry Potters lands are the most detailed lands Universal have EVER made.

You’re comparing apples to oranges in regards to the discussion of Splash Mountain.

Jaws, the film, has done way more for Universal than the Harry Potter films, simply because HP isn’t Universal. Both are strong IPs to present in a theme park.

Song of the South has done more to damage Disney. Its presence in the parks was inappropriate from the start, although widely loved (even by myself). PatF will undoubtedly do more for the parks and Disney as a company with its conversion to PatF.

Jaws was simply a good business move due to cost and foot print.

 

[belloq87]

In both cases....its hard to know if its better...but I can tell you Harry Potter brought in a ton more people than Jaws Ever did.

Like I know some Universal fans do not like Harry Potter (and maybe one day Nintendo) but these IP's are huge and bigger than and I'd argue better than anything Universal has....only you want Minion/fast and furious rides instead I think we are getting a hell of a deal because both Nintendoland/Harry Potters lands are the most detailed lands Universal have EVER made.

I love HP. And I think Diagon Alley is an extraordinary land. It makes sense why Universal felt it was a necessary move, financially, and I consider it mostly a fair trade-off because the land is such an enjoyable place to spend time.

But I'd take Jaws over Escape from Gringotts all day long, every day.

 

[HandsomePete]

Make if it what you will. It is somewhat telling that -- every time they need to justify making a change -- they drag out some variation of something Walt Disney said once (in contexts that aren't really reflective of what he likely meant).

Because the idea of spending over $100M replacing perfectly functional asset (not meaning to kick off another debate here, that applies to ToT or Maelstrom or any number of changes) with a similar functioning asset doesn't make much sense to Wall Street. They trot out the "this is our company's DNA" line to justify it to those people.

 

[Nick]

You’re comparing apples to oranges in regards to the discussion of Splash Mountain.

Jaws, the film, has done way more for Universal than the Harry Potter films, simply because HP isn’t Universal. Both are strong IPs to present in a theme park.

Song of the South has done more to damage Disney. Its presence in the parks was inappropriate from the start, although widely loved (even by myself). PatF will undoubtedly do more for the parks and Disney as a company with its conversion to PatF.

Jaws was simply a good business move due to cost and foot print.

I actually think Harry Potter has done more because without it, the parks were on the brink of going under around the 2008 financial crisis if Potter was a failure. And that’s not hyperbole.They were in really rough shape and it’s now one of Comcast’s best assets.

 

[Scott W.]

Josh D'Amaro speaks on the matter:

"We actually have been working on it for well over a year. In fact, I was a part of those conversations over a year ago. Listen, our stories evolve all the time. I mean, back from when Walt started Disneyland back in 1955, he stated that if we would continue to evolve our stories, that they're never ending, that they'll always be contemporary. And I think that that's what you're seeing with Splash Mountain.

I keep using the same word, but I'm really proud of this team and what we're doing on this front. I think Splash Mountain, no doubt, is a sacred attraction to many of our guests. And I think you're going to love what we're doing in making the attraction even more contemporary."

Make if it what you will. It is somewhat telling that -- every time they need to justify making a change -- they drag out some variation of something Walt Disney said once (in contexts that aren't really reflective of what he likely meant).

The "you're going to love what's coming" is the standard operating procedure when talking about replacing a beloved attraction (I still remember Universal's statement announcing Jaws was going away, and it was very similar). But if "making it more contemporary" means significantly fewer animatronics, it's going to be difficult for me to "love" it.

Knowing this and what's happening in the world just now makes me think that this won't happen for a few years. People are going to want to get a final ride in.

 

[belloq87]

Because the idea of spending over $100M replacing perfectly functional asset (not meaning to kick off another debate here, that applies to ToT or Maelstrom or any number of changes) with a similar functioning asset doesn't make much sense to Wall Street. They trot out the "this is our company's DNA" line to justify it to those people.

It's also a subtle (or not-so-subtle) way to try to inoculate against fan criticism.

"What, are you saying you disagree with Walt Disney?!"

Knowing this and what's happening in the world just now makes me think that this won't happen for a few years. People are going to want to get a final ride in.

I mean, Jim Hill (for whatever his info's worth) says it's not closing down for the retheme until sometime in 2022. At Magic Kingdom, anyway.