Although news articles are constantly claiming the Orlando theme parks are doing poorly, a new article claims just the opposite. Apparently this summer will end up being very close to Summer 2000, which would be about the exact opposite of all previous claims since 2000 was a record year for the theme parks.
Problem is, discounts are still reigning supreme, so while people are snapping up great ticket offers by Walt Disney World, Universal Orlando and SeaWorld, they seem to be finding cheaper places to stay, if they need a place to stay in the first place. While this little fact hurts SeaWorld the least, UO may be weathering the storm with only three onsite hotels. WDW, on the other hand, will still probably end up with poor numbers when all is said and done. And the reason for delaying the opening the cheaper Decades resort was what again?
NOT BRAINY CORPORATION
Orlando Sentinel - Aug 27
Motley Fool - Aug 26
Thanks to Tim Hillman for the second link!
Not one but TWO articles are floating out there now about how GE not only needs Universal, but how NBC needs the Universal parks.
While the Motley Fool article gives a fairly good rundown of the Universal Entertainment auction up to this point, for those who aren't old enough to remember when the damn thing began, the other article makes a strong point for the parks that NBC and GE seem to be missing.
It is widely believed that the theme parks would be quickly sold off, most likely to Blackstone Group, who would eventually sell them to someone else. But the Sentinel asks why. Why, if you plan on fighting Disney in the movie and television fields, would you ignore fighting them in the theme park world? Why ignore the synergy availability? Especially when NBC has far more worth synergizing than ABC does. Furthermore, NBC could cross-promote by filming shows in the Universal soundstages. And advertise the parks for free on television and vice-versa. For the sake of the Universal theme park fans, who are tired of so many different owners in such a short span of time, let's hope NBC figures this stuff out! (If they win the neverending auction, of course!)
EVERYBODY HATES MICHAEL
Jim Hill Media - Aug 29
Sometimes it seems like all the powerhouses of the entertainment industry just loathe Michael Eisner, doesn't it? Whether it is Steve Jobs or George Lucas or Hillary Duff (HA!), the man can't seem to catch a break. Well, add to that list the name of Steven Spielberg. Yes, the man that 99.999999% of Hollywood wants to marry apparently refuses to do any sort of business with Eisner.
And what business would that be? Well, as part owner of the Roger Rabbit characters, Disney cannot do anything Roger-related without Spielberg's consent. And Spielberg has specifically stated he will not allow the construction of attractions like the long-rumored Roger Rabbit attraction at Disney/MGM or ToonTown in Paris until Eisner is gone.
But would he cooperate after that? Things have changed in the 15 years since "Roger Rabbit" appeared in theaters. Spielberg is now a paid consultant for Universal's parks, and he makes a pretty penny from that title. Would he want attractions, for which he wouldn't make a cent, to appear in rival parks? Considering how long he persuaded USH to keep the ET ride around, he might want more testaments to "Roger Rabbit." Then again, Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment produced the film, so it isn't like he directed the thing. Time will tell, I guess. A loooooong time, no doubt.
When you wrote: "And Spielberg has specifically stated he will not allow the construction of attractions like the long-rumored Roger Rabbit attraction at Disney/MGM or ToonTown in Paris until Eisner is gone."
Can you provide a source where Mr. Spielberg makes that specific statement ("I will not allow any Roger Rabbit attraction to be constructed until Eisner is gone."
I have no doubt that he said it. Could you tell us where we can find that quote?
Thank you.
It would seem to me that if Universal is paying Spielberg a few million bucks every year that arrangement would preclude him from ever doing any attraction at the Disney parks.
But I could be wrong. Awaiting Mr. Baxter to source the statement in his original post.
I'd be surprised if there weren't such a clause in it, yet, at the same time, given the very favorable terms that Spielberg got from Universal, it seems that he was the one in the "driver's seat" on that negotiation, and might have avoided that clause if he didn't want one.
Not that I want to bring up the whole "who's in the driver's seat" thing again.... ;-)
(Man, I'm good...)
Thank you Mr. Niles for maintaining this site's sense of humor!
Where was this "specifically stated?"
