Is a bigger disney world a better disney world????

[Bob O]

From reading a lot of threads on these boards their are alot of comments stating disney world is better now because it is bigger, but is that really true. Is bigger/more parks better than smaller/less parks???
My question is do you think disney would have been better not building Animal Kingdom at all, but instead used that money to beef up the remaining 3 parks??? Would we be better of if the MK had used a portion of the money to build Fire Mountain or some other attraction where the lagoon now stands empty.Or maybe have built a couple of additional countries in Epcot like had been planned. Or maybe have added a new attraction to MGM or redone the outdated Star Tours. With the money used to build Animal Kingdom disney could have helped out all 3 parks rather then now have to spread the money they have over 4 parks. Most people it seems to me believe that Animal Kingdom is now only a half day park anyway and i wonder how many people visit it as part of a park hopper but if they had to buy a single day admission to the park would they?
What are your comments, in retrospect was building Animal Kingdom the right thing or has it siphoned off money that could have been used better in the remaining 3 parks.

[Captain Crook]

Good question Bob O, and I think the answer in an undeniable yes...And no.

WDW needed to grow, IMO, or the Park population would be unbearable all of the time. Before AK & in MGM's early days we didn't go nearly as much because the crowds were just getting unmanageable. Throughout the good years (the Clinton years - that's tongue in cheek, fella's), travel in the USA was unprecedented and WDW was filled to the brim. I think AK was needed and is, in fact, my favorite Park, although I will admit that it is, so far, an underachiever. One of the main reason's we don't take US or SW seriously in our family is that they are basically 'day trips' and we're not driving 5.5 hours for a one day destination (I know others feel differently & while I respect that opinion, we just don't see these parks as anymore than that).

I am in the scoop school when it comes to adding things. I love Disney because of the way it is and they don't have to continue to offer new e-ticket attractions yearly to keep me satisfied. I'm buying the whole package, so to speak. With that said, however, I hate to see empty areas like 20,000 leagues, the Skyway & ABC Theatre. I do believe there should be a consistent push forward - even if they're baby steps. That's why you'll not hear complaints from me over Dino-Rama or new parades...IMO, it's all good. I think the push toward BK is huge and necessary step, however.

As someone discussed earlier (elsewhere) I do worry about maintenance & upkeeep, for I feel the maintenance of the Disney quality is more important than adding new attractions (by quality I mean cleanliness, guest services & the little things - that are under some stress right now).

In conclusion, I don't think Disney had a choice with regard to the 90's expansion just like I think they're locked into a relaive 'no growth' phase for a while in the 00's. But I think it's important that they remember who they are and how they got where they are more than how are we going to keep up with the Jones', er Universal...

:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[daannzzz]

I love the Animal Kingdom and can spend a whole day there. The point of building the AK was to get people to extend their stay. However could Disney have done this without building the AK. How many people spend two days at MK, Epcot, and The Studios. The Studios is my least favorite park yet I can easily spend a day and a half there. I almost always do two days at Epcot and mostly a day and a half at the MK. What would have happened if they had taken the $$$ from the AKL and put a ride ( not a movie) in each of the attractionless countries in World Showcase. These would be D and E ticked rides. That would add 5 new rides. What if they added a couple more E tickets to MK and The studios. Would that make people extend their stay to cover everything?
Personally I like going to the different parks because of the atmosphere and it did make me stay at WDW longer. Instead of going to see other Orlando attractions. I go to the AK.

[vacationwoman]

I think your right about WDW having to build AK (even though I personally don't like it all, the last 3 times I was there a lion and tiger were laying on a rock in the same exact position "sleeping" according to Safari guide. I don't even think they are real)
The influx of visitors needed another "area" to handle them. I think also that maintenence and small services are suffering in recent times because of the Corporation overextending themselves with ABC and Fox Family purchases. The parks are suffering because of this and other mismanagement (in my opinion). Todays Executives don't have the same feeling for Disney as the family did.

http://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/birthday.gif
Happy Birthday Walt

[Bob O]

I think the thing that happened is people arent extending their stay at Animal Kingdom like disney had hoped. I think people are making time for it at the expense of others parks but not staying longer. I think it would be intersting to compare all the individual parks in single day ticket sales. When people only have a day or two to see where they go, i would guess Animal Kingdom would fare badly compared to the other 3. I enjoy Animal Kingdom, but its not a complete park as it is now and thats why from what i read and hear that nighttime attendance is very low. I think rather then build a incomplete 4th gate disney should have put the money into the other 3 parks and not build a 4th park till they were ready to do it right like TDS.

[Eeyore2U]

Since we go yearly, we spend a half day at AK. Have never eaten a meal there or seen the parade. I think if they build Beastly Kingdom the landscape changes. Hopefully that will be announced at the media event in December.

[C.Ann]

Animal Kingdom is my least favorite park and after seeing it for the first time this past September I would say the money could have been better spent on possibly expanding or updating the remaining 3 parks.. Something about AK just doesn't "do it" for me and oddly enough, I love animal parks!

[Captain Crook]

C.Ann, I appreciate your view, but you failed to address a couple of our suppositions that a 4th gate was absolutely needed.

Do you think it would it have been better to upgrade the three Parks to such a level that we have the 190 minute attraction waits like TDS (as indicated on another thread)?

Also, although AK is underperforming there are still a lot devotees (such as myself) who find it utterly magical...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[YoHo]

If the studios had been designed better, it could have handled more people.

Epcot is obscenely huge yet has comparativly few long wait time attractions. and there are plenty of possible themes.

Animal Kingdom wasn't needed. That theory is completely incorrect. Adding a Fire mountain, or Villians mountain would only serve to balance out wait times throughout MK. RnRC and Fantasmic helped the Studios, but Star Tours is doing woefully little buisness right now. That upgrade would have taken the heat off.

Epcot built test track which was good and JIYI which is bad. I don't know that that was a budget problem though. I think that was a creativity failure.


Don't get me wrong, I love Animal Kingdom. If they had a full service sit down resturant it would be fairly complete in my book and Beastly Kingdom would be nice too, but they did NEED to build it. Heck if they hadn't built it, they might be better off now.

[Captain Crook]

We haven't disagreed in awhile Yoho, but I guess we do now.

I see MK as a boondoggle continuosly and adding Fire Mtn...Well, forget it. It is true that Epcot has pleanty of space, but it also has a lot of slow loading attractions, danger Will Robinson, danger...TT's waiting times are a good indicator of what would happen if new E tickets were built - I suspect we'll see an unbearable crowd influx when SPACE opens.

Now MGM, well, it was built the way it was, right or wrong so this is what we have. I think The Studios are prone to fill up with 'less provcation' shall we say because of its relative size. Again, its shows are slow, its traffic flow isn't particularily good & its small. I think MGM & Epcot definately need a couple of new attractions but considering the money they spent on AK, they could have gone nuts with E ticket rides and I do believe the lines would be ridiculous.

Lastly, on every trip this year Star Tours had had a 20 minute line (minimum)...

gcurling, if you're out there I'd love your thoughts on this particular issue...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[fklhou]

While I love AK, we rarely stay pass 11 a.m. Beastly Kingdom would help make AK more of a full day park. Clearly both Epcot and MGM could use another E-ticket ride each. MK needs to update a couple of rides and replace 20,000 Leagues with something.

[YoHo]

Hmm, I haven't seen a 20 minute wait (I wouldn't consider that long either way) on Star Tours in years.

Actually, Epcot used to have a number of fast load attractions. some have been removed others are just old.

Star Tours should be demanding 40 minute waits.
In my opinion, if an E-Ticket doesn't maintain a 40 minute wait during mildly busy times, then it isn't pulling its wait(pun completely intended):).

Remember, MK's attendance level has a cap. Adding E-tickets puts more guests in line which makes things feel less crowded. Further, by upping the ride count and the wait times, your forcing people to allocate an extra day to their vacations which was the goal in the first place.
Your going to get people in to MK whether you build a new E-Ticket or not, you have a garunteed audience. For much less expense, you can add vacation days.


The gamble with Animal Kingdom seems to have been that by spreading the guests out, making it seem less crowded and offering another park, they would gain vacation days. That kind of gamble requires money. Disney decided part way through to not spend all of the money. For the money they did spend, they could have done a thousand things to the rest of the Resort and it would have truely been better and might have achieved their goal.

[Bob O]

I dont think disney needed a fourth gate. They could have made the existing parks better with more attractions to handle bigger crowds. Animal Kingdom i dont believe accomplised its objective by increasing the amount of days people stay per trip. And if they did add a fourth gate it should have been a complete park from the get go, rather than a incomplete park like it is now. But this has been a very interesting discussion.

[Captain Crook]

I can't dispute that perhaps Disney should have "finished" AK at inception, but it really isn't fair to second guess, either. I'm not privy to plans predicated on this economy or that or any of a million other items used in their decision making. I only know what WAS done, and I am quite happy with AK - even Dinorama, but I AM anxiously awaiting BK.

As to MK, yes it has capacities and yes new E-tickets would sort out the crowds, somewhat. But without the 4th gate and with added incentives (new attractions) for more people to come to MK (or Epcot or MGM), these Parks would hit capacity far more frequently (under normal circumstances). I have been to MK on several occasions of capacity & Epcot once, and let me tell you these ARE NOT pretty sights.

Perhaps Disney could introduce enough new attractions to spread out the capacity crowds somewhat but I honestly don't think so.

I still beleive the 4th gate was necessary & I still believe AK is a great Park - And if it isn't now, it soon will be.
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[airlarry!]

Yoho! I agree with you on your assessment of AK. I know I may have mentioned this a while back, but can you imagine if AK had two more full lands (BK & Australia) with two big ticket items and complementery smaller attractions ... with ... a sit down restaurant a la Cinderella's Royal Table but INSIDE the Tree of Life...with a beautiful view of some park area?

Wow.

Can you imagine how hard it would be to book some Character Breakfast (Lion King comes to mind or Pocohantos) inside the Tree of Life?

[DVC-Landbaron]

When: Early August
Where: The Dolphin (while on Disney property, clearly NOT a Disney resort!)
Attendants: gcurling, The Pirate Captain (Peter Crook) and the "old" LandBaron
Purpose: Face to face Disney discussion
Subject: Gates at WDW

The meeting was to take place by the pool. However, rain moved the meeting inside. At the bar (where else?;)). About half way through the meeting the conversation turned to the amount of gates at WDW. Gcurling and the LandBaron were deep into a hot debate on the subject and were (as usual) on opposite ends of the spectrum. My question is: Why didn't Bob O, that self proclaimed but quite correct "Voice of Reason" make his presence known as long as he was sitting close enough to eavesdrop?

I'm only kidding of course. I guess this is just my way of absolutely agreeing with the esteemed Mr. Bob O. Every word of his posts (and YoHo's) is 100% correct!!!! Once again, the suits got greedy. They mistook quantity for quality. Something that is diametrically opposed to the original "Disney philosophy".

Hmmm. Somehow, I'm not surprised. How sad. :(

[YoHo]

Actually, While I would love AK to have 2 additional lands, I don't even think that was needed. Dinorama or some version of it should have been there from the get go. (fancy playgrounds don't cut it for adults and remember, Disney parks aren't supposed to be JUST for kids.) Africa and Asia could both do with another traditional attraction such as a Dark ride. Right now there simply isn't enough draw to each individual land.

Or alternatly, Camp Minny Mickey and Conservation station should have been better fleshed out.

[daannzzz]

I can spen a whole day at AK but I do understand that for others it is a short park. The addition of Beastly Kingdom will be nice but it will not add that much more time to anyones day particularly if the main E-ticket is a coaster. If they add a coaster and another C or D ticket attraction that will add another hour for people and they will leave at 2:00 instead of 1:00. I would love to see some C and D tickets added to all the lands along with a couple full service restaurants. I would love to be able to stay in this park after dark and experience the ambiance, lighting and feel after the sun goes down. It will take more than BK to keep all these others in AK until after sundown.

[JeffJewell]

...to the simple "not enough to do" complaints, there is a more subtle reason that there's a mass exodus from AK during the early afternoon: the contract with Rainforest Cafe stipulates that Disney cannot open a "competing" restaurant inside the park. So if you're planning what park to attend some afternoon/evening, and wondering what kind of "nicer" dinner options are available, the only thing AK can offer is a re-run from Downtown Disney (which is a re-run from points non-Disney across the globe).

The lack of restaurant options contributes to making the other three parks more attractive afternoon/evening parks than AK.

Jeff

PS: In answer to the actual topic, I don't think there's any inherent advantage or disadvantage to opening another gate versus making improvements to existing gates. I simply think Disney blew it on several different aspects of AK, resulting in the lackluster attendance. If Disney had made "improvements" to the other parks and blew them the same way that they did AK, those improvements would also have failed to achieve the desired results.

[Lesley]

Nightime visitors to AK? The times I visited it wasn't a problem because they closed at 5....there is no nighttime at AK.

I don't know that AK was necessary, but I'm glad they built it. I love AK. I would like to see it be more of what it was intended to be...they really should not have even opened without a Beastly Kingdom (don't you think the elements that were worked into the logo art, etc...should have at least been included from the beginning?)

Once again I just see it as Disney doing things "cheap" instead of "right"

Now the question remains if I would prefer upgrades/better maintenance at the 3 previously existing parks over having AK. Damn, that's a tough one....I want it all. Actually I vote for maintenance over new stuff.....but when there is new stuff I'd like it to be quality. Does that make sense? If it would mean no new attractions or parks to keep all the lightbulbs lit, paint fresh, rides running smoothly and service wonderful....I think it would be worth it. Disney is not perfect as it is...it was perfect as it was. They've added alot but taken away some of the most important things. Part of the appeal of WDW from the beginning for me is that it appeared to be a world immune to things like "wearing out" and "running down"....everything was fresh and beautiful and taken care of, and the cm's reflected that as well...friendly, helpful, and caring.

[All Aboard]

I'm not sure where this discussion is right now. Are we debating the quality of AK again? Are we debating the necessity of AK? Are we talking future parks v. future attractions? Are we discussing attraction loading speeds and their impact on crowds? I guess it's a little of all of this.

Landbaron knows that I am a proponent of continued park development. But, (as I insert a caveat here) at a very slow and protracted pace. I speak more from a selfish standpoint. Most of you know that I spend about 30-40 days a year in the WDW parks. Clearly, more parks would offer us the opportunity to spread out time around more.

Wait, is it "clearly"?

Not if the offerings don't "do" it for us. And, unfortuneately AK doesn't "do" it for us. We have spent such little time in AK this year that it's a bit scary. On our most recent trip earlier this month, we shot over to AK at the end of our last day (Sunday) rode Dinosaur once, tried out the soft opening of Tricertaop Spin, got in the car and headed back to Miami. In fact, on our next three day weekend, I don't have AK in the plans at all. What's the problem? Well, we are also annual passholders at Miami Metrozoo & Parrot Jungle. Walking through the treks, trails & taking the safari offer us little that we can't get in our own back yard. Kali has lost it's novelty, ITTBAB (like Muppetvision) is close to "been-there-done-that" status, and then there's... well there really isn't much left. It'll take a BK to get us to spend any significant time there in the future.

It seems that Disney put lots of dollars into places at AK where there is not much payoff. Take the Tree of Life for example the animal carvings are magnificent - but how many folks do you hear raving about that? I think guests want outstanding attractions. They want to be wowed at every level. There is very little at AK that does that.

Now, if WDW dropped an IOA on property, they'd get many repeat visits from us. And Disney is clearly capable of that kind of park.

From a business perspective, I'd be very concerned that Central Florida is coming very close to capacity. Just how many more theme parks can be justified? The bottom line for me is that the best course of action for the foreseeable (10 year) future is to beef up the four existing offerings and backburner any plans of a 5th gate.

Confused? Me too.

As to loading times for Test Track. Peter Captain, I don't think that loading time is the chief cause of TT's long lines. Instead I think it is purely popularity. Earlier in the month, I timed the interval of cars whizzing by on the Track. Seems to be a fairly consistent 12 seconds. That's 5 cars a minute, each with a load of 6 guests. So, 30 guests a minute translates to 1800 guests per hour (barring breakdowns) and while I'm no expert, I think that's pretty good.

[All Aboard]

Ok Scoop, first question, have you been to IoA?

It's not a coaster park. It has no more coasters than the Magic Kingdom. It's definitely more thrill oriented and may be classified as a thrill park, but that's not what I really enjoy about IoA. I love the immersive theming and the fact that they did every single attraction "all the way." And not just the attractions... the restaurants, shops, everything was done in an "all out" fashion. I was really blown away the first time I went to IoA.

As for the height restrictions, there's actually quite a bit a 42 inch child can do. My 3 year old (nearing 4) daughter is now 42 inches tall in shoes. She can't ride Hulk, Dr. Doom, Dragons or Ripsaw. That's it at both parks, 4 attractions. Between Disney-MGM Studios & Magic Kingdom, there are 3 attractions for which she is too small.

Chad, you are "homering" a bit on this one. There's nothing wrong with "homering". Before I attended IoA, I too thought only Disney was capable of building a park that deserves very high accolades. I've since changed my opinion.

[Eeyore2U]

It's not a coaster park. It has no more coasters than the Magic Kingdom. It's definitely more thrill oriented and may be classified as a thrill park, but that's not what I really enjoy about IoA. I love the immersive theming and the fact that they did every single attraction "all the way." And not just the attractions... the restaurants, shops, everything was done in an "all out" fashion. I was really blown away the first time I went to IoA.

I was at IoA last February and thought it was nothing more then a coaster park. I thought it was cheapely done. The so called animatronics in Ripsaw Falls were cheesy. The themeing did not jump at out me. We were fortunate enough to do the park in about 4 hours but we were not excited about it. Part of my problem was NONE of the shops or food stands were open. I will say that Spiderman was one of the best rides I have seen. We will go back this February for a day for DS and friend but I think I'll be looking forward to lunch/dinner at CityWalk more then IoA.

[YoHo]

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that Disney Should have Dropped in AK with IOA's level of completeness?

Having not been to IOA, I can't really comment, but based on what I've read about the park, I don't get the impression that it follows a specific Theme per se. Such as AK, or The Studios.

I don't think simply Disney's IOA with disney characters instead of Universal licenses would be a good plan.

[All Aboard]

Mitch, no doubt Ripsaw Falls is the weakest link at IoA. But other side by side comparisons of "theirs" to "ours" such as Popeye v. Kali & Jurassic Park v. Dinosaur go in favor of IoA for me. Plus, their children's play areas are equal or better. If I ran the Zoo, Camp Jurassic, Me Ship the Olive, Fievel's Playland and Curious George combine for some outstanding children's areas. Walt Disney World really only has Honey I Shrunk the Kids and The Boneyard. Overall themeing is quite thourough and encompassing to me. From the out of the way areas in Suess Landing to the winding streets of The Lost Continent to the wonderful stage that's set as you pass through Port of Entry.

Don't get me wrong, the Mouse is still King in my book. But Universal has proven (to me at least) that Disney hasn't completely cornered the market on very well done theme parks.

Mitch, too bad you were not able to get into the restaurants. That's one of the things that I think IoA has done best. Even the counter service restaurants like Thunder Falls, Burger Digs & Enchanted Oak Tavern are wonderfully architetured and decorated. Mythos is fascinating.

YoHo, that's a good synopsis. I don't think that IoA as it is works in the family of Disney parks. Certainly it draws on an entirely different set of characters. On the whole, it's a far more "finished" park than AK, and I guess that's what I was driving at. It's hard to explain, but I just wish that AK "did" for me what IoA "does."

As for the theming mix, it flows in a somewhat ackward pattern when you jump from The Lost Continent to Suess Landing. But, otherwise the flow is pretty smooth.


I'm not sure how the park gets the reputation of being a coaster park. Folks, it has two adult coasters and a kid coaster. That's it. We aren't talking about Cedar Park here.

[Eeyore2U]

Mitch, no doubt Ripsaw Falls is the weakest link at IoA. But other side by side comparisons of "theirs" to "ours" such as Popeye v. Kali & Jurassic Park v. Dinosaur go in favor of IoA for me. Plus, their children's play areas are equal or better. If I ran the Zoo, Camp Jurassic, Me Ship the Olive, Fievel's Playland and Curious George combine for some outstanding children's areas. Walt Disney World really only has Honey I Shrunk the Kids and The Boneyard. Overall themeing is quite thourough and encompassing to me. From the out of the way areas in Suess Landing to the winding streets of The Lost Continent to the wonderful stage that's set as you pass through Port of Entry

I'll give you Popeye, but not Jurrasic Park. I'll take ToT over Dr Fear. We don't use the children's play areas but DS had fun at Feivel's years ago. I will give you that Lost Continent is wonderfully themed. But as for the rest it doesn't stick in my mind. We were last in US about 9 years ago. Nothing there made me want to go back since it was bland. When I make the comparison between US/IOA and WDW, WDW is a vacation and US/IOA is a day trip. I wish we could get a 2park/1 day tickets at US/IoA because imo it's all it would take us.

As we planned our upcoming Feb trip, we knew DS wanted to go to IoA. DW and I were going to go to US. We decided there was not enough to do. We'll go to IoA and probably have DS and friend meet us at Margaritaville, which intrigues (sp) me more then the park.

[YoHo]

Again, I've never been there, but my impression is that IOA succeeds NOT, because it is a thrill park, but becuase it was built to the same standards that Disney uses and was a complete park which Animal Kingdom is not.

I love animal kingdom, but I wish it had more to do And the Deal with Rainforest sucks.

On the other hand, I think JeffJewell will agree with me that AK has a nice laid back feel to it. :)

[daannzzz]

I like AK and IOA about equally. I probably rode the same amount of "rides" at both parks. Not as muchinto coasters as I used to be. As far as themeing goes, IOA is really, really close. The blew it on only a couple of things and I like it better than DCA.

[JeffJewell]

I think JeffJewell will agree with me that AK has a nice laid back feel to it ...absolutely. We love AK; particularly after noon when it just gets deader and deader; crowded parks are the exact opposite of a vacation, for us (that's one of the reasons I'm so personally cranky about the latest WDW budget cuts: we used EE and E-nights and late shows and parades to avoid whatever crowds we could. Best laid plans...).

I could spend a potentially infinite amount of time in AK, just wandering back and forth between the Oasis, the Jungle Trek, Pangani Trail, and the Safari; shooting roll after roll of film. I always thought the best parts of AK were where they took the theme "zoo" and maxed it out.

Jeff

PS: It sucks that they closed Flame Tree.

[JeffJewell]

I just don't want that to become the focus of WDW. ...okay, not the focus of WDW, but a fifth gate that happens to be a coaster park couldn't be called the "focus of WDW." If you're not a fifth-gater, adding, say, one world class thrill ride per park, wouldn't make thrills the "focus of WDW" would it?

But expanding along that path, even if only tentatively, would create a Disney presence in a market that guests now have to leave property to enter. You wanna keep guests on-site an extra day, you've got to take their IoA day, somehow: most of them didn't get any more vacation time, this year.

In this case, I think the fifth gate is the way to go. Already on these boards I've advocated a separately ticketed mini-gate of thrill rides. I believe there's a lot of upside to such a park, so long as they spare no pixie dust themeing the third party ride mechs.

Jeff

[raidermatt]

We enjoyed AK, and while of course I would like it to have had more from day one, I understand the strategy of opening earlier than that. It mitigates risk, starts the revenue stream, and allows for changes to plans before its too late.

I agree that the contract with Rainforest stinks, at least from my personal perspective. Maybe Disney makes more money this way, but it would be nice to have some "real" restaurants inside.

I would like to see a 5th gate provided:

1. MK/Epcot/MGM are properly maintained, and continue to be tweaked with a new ride/attraction every so often.
2, AK continues to be developed at faster rate than the other three more mature parks. (Of course, when the consensus is that it is mature, the rate can slow)

I'm ok with the 5th gate being opened DCA/AK/MGM style, meaning its not "complete" when it opens. Its more important to me that whatever it does open with is done with quality and theming in mind. The fact that Disney already has three mature parks in the area is what allows them to use this strategy. The fact that the DL resort only had one mature park is a big reason why DCA caught so much flak.

Should it be a "thrill" park? It could be slanted a little more in that direction, but not a Six Flags with great theming and service. It should still have plenty of things that the whole family can do together, and shows and parades should still be plentiful.

Since this discussion has gone all over the place anyway... If a 5th gate were opened, what them would you like to see?

[Captain Crook]

Great post. You think very clearly & express yourself admirably.

Regarding a new Park, I will part ways with my friend scoop here and say that I feel an IOA or thrill type Park could be very Disney-doable, but I don't think it could be a true 5th gate. Because of the shift in demographic for such a Park, I think it would probably be a water park-esque type venue, meant as an offering to the thrill demographic to keep them on site or to placate the family teenagers. But because it wouldn't be a full gate I think it would need to be located near one of the full gates (Epcot has been mentioned).
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[hopemax]

I really hope that WDW does not create a park where the majority of rides cannot be ridden or experienced by any age, height, or size.


Out of curiosity, Scoop...if a park had 25 attractions with 11 of those being "rides" the rest being shows, and exhibits. And of the 11 rides, only 4 were without some kind of height/size requirement, would that be acceptable?

[All Aboard]

I'm not suggesting that Disney do a "thrill park", although I don't know that it's all that bad of an idea. My use of IoA as an example was more along the lines that YoHo has suggested. It's an immersive park, extremely detailed in every way and it's filled with E ticket attractions. And there really is so much more to it than the thrills. But, I know everyone does not see it that way. In any event, I prefer a day at IoA to a day at AK. I think that means alot considering that I'm pretty much a major league homer myself.

Hopemax, out of curiousity, are you describing a particular park? I know I referenced 4 attractions at IoA that were too "big" for my daughter, but there are another 4 attractions there with height limits. She's just tall enough for those.

[Douglas Dubh]

"Hopemax, out of curiousity, are you describing a particular park?"

My guess is she's talking about DCA. Eleven rides: Limo, Soarin', Grizzly, Golden Zephyr, Jumping Jellyfish, Orange Stinger, Mullholland Madness, Sun Wheel, Screamin', Carousel, Maliboomer. Only Limo, Zephyr, Sun Wheel, and the Carousel have no limits.

My answer would be a conditional yes. Out of twenty-something attractions (I don't count the games as attractions, and I'd combine the tortilla and bread into one attraction, and only because of the free samples), only seven have height restrictions. My daughter reached 42" before she was 5, and could go on everything except Screamin, Maliboomer, and Orange Stinger. If I had a child or children under 42", and especially if I was only going to the DLR for 2 days or less, then I'd say no.

Regarding opening new parks versus expanding old ones, one of the problems with Epcot is that it is too hard to expand. Granted, anyone one of us could come up with a dozen or more cool ideas, but the way Epcot is structured, each new idea would have to be sponsored. Disney couldn't, say, fund a ride for Japan without the risk of France saying, "We should get a new movie, and you should pay for it, since you paid for Japan's ride." The Studios is also hard to expand because of its location and layout, and Magic Kingdom needs it the least.

[YoHo]

I would not be adverse to a 5th gate as the Captain has described it. (although I can't fathom how preciesly it would work) I would prefer that they work it in to existing parks as they did with ToT and RnRC. Epcot's Futureworld would be easy to expand IF they changed the concept from one sponser per pavilion to one sponser per pavilion Element. For instance, Compaq pays for the Ride itself, General Dynamics pays for some B or C ticket attraction in the pavilion, Northrop pays for something else etc. Alternatly, Disney should take over costs of ride contstruction itself and have sponsers pay for other aspects, reducing sponsership cost (more sponsers) while increasing Disney's control.

Contrary to my above statement, Epcot should be left out of the thrill ride additions unless you count things like test track and mission space.

MK should Get another mountain. MGM should get something over in the NY city backlot area. AK should have Animal Kingdom.
It would be much better to take that IOA day away with the existing parks rather then build another one to do it.

[All Aboard]

AK should have Animal Kingdom. Now, that's funny!

[YoHo]

DOH! :)

It should be AK should have Beastly Kingdom.

I type faster then I think I guess

[DVC-Landbaron]

YoHo, you are indeed an honest man.

I would have been tempted to edit my post and then asked gcurling just what the the heck he was talking about!!

I said tempted, I might not have done it!! ;)


:crazy:

[Douglas Dubh]

"Epcot's Futureworld would be easy to expand IF they changed the concept from one sponser per pavilion to one sponser per pavilion Element. For instance, Compaq pays for the Ride itself, General Dynamics pays for some B or C ticket attraction in the pavilion, Northrop pays for something else etc."

This might be hard to implement. I could see multiple companies bickering about their relative advertising versus their contributions or about the amount of lounge space provided, etc. I doubt you be able to convince two rivals companies to support a single pavilion; you'd have to match up companies that complement each other.

I believe multiple corporations now sponsor most of the World Showcase pavilions. When was the last time we saw expansion there?

[YoHo]

About a month ago, rumour had it that the Britian Pavilion was undergoing some changes. Haven't heard any followup though.

[Douglas Dubh]

"About a month ago, rumour had it that the Britian Pavilion was undergoing some changes. Haven't heard any followup though."

I recall it was more about changing shops then building new attractions.

[raidermatt]

Captain Crook- Thanks for the kind words (and for not mentioning the gramatical errors!:) )

I think whether or not Disney builds a more thrill oriented park, or feels compelled to add more thrill rides to its current parks, will be largely determined by how much business they lose to Universal.

Clearly Disney wants to have parks that families can stay together in, but its also apparent that some families, particularly those with teenagers, are skipping a day or two of Disney in favor of Universal. I suppose this issue has always been on Disney's radar screen, and so far Six Flags, Busch, etc have not made Disney change their strategy. However, with the pressure to constantly show growth, this may become a market Disney feels it must tap.

Having a more thrill oriented park would also probably attract a higher percentage of locals, somewhat mitigating WDW's vulnerability to economic downturns and drops in tourism.

[DC7800]

Originally posted by thedscoop
You see, to me, what makes Disney Different is that it is different than the typical amusement park formula.

...but I sure hope WDW never becomes "Gut Thrills First". Things like the Land, GMR, Pirates, Haunted Mansion are unique types of thrills--maybe the don't grab your stomach--but, to me at least, they grab all my senses much more than any Vekoma.


So far as I'm concerned, there are more than enough "thrill rides" at WDW right now. The drop in Pirates is about as much as I can take, so you can imagine how I feel about RnR. Many people seem to crave such thrills, though, so I wouldn't mind 2-3 at each park either. Problem is, many of the major additions to the existing parks in recent years have already been thrill rides: notably ToT, RnR, Dinosaur, and Test Track. I'd like a nice, slow, JII or Horizons type dark ride, please! Ideally, Dinosaur and ToT would have some form of "mild" ride option which tones down the movement and brakes the elevator on the way down - so anyone can ride.

I may be way off track with this, but I'm not convinced Disney should even try to address the thrill ride market in it's parks. Many people - having never visited WDW, but familiar through movies, tv, word-of-mouth, etc. - equate the modern theme park with "faster, wetter, wilder" (don't know where I found that quote) thrill rides. And, anyone can build thrill rides and decorate them with "a little theming". Disney is supposed to be a cut above this standard - Imagineering can do so much better. Should WDW ever build a basic (minimal theming) thrill ride (like DCA perhaps; maybe Triceratops) people will start to equate Disney with those other parks.

So, if you go into Epcot or MK looking solely for big thrills, you might even be disappointed (in a Disney park!). There are three big "thrill rides" in the MK. As excellent as those ride experiences are, I am imagining someone coming out of the park at the end of the day exclaiming how SM and BTMRR were nice enough, but Six Flags had so much more to do. To keep up with the thrill parks, you'd have to build a lot more than 2-3 thrill rides per park (and then why would you need to come to WDW for rides you have back home). Disney doesn't have to keep up - and it shouldn't try - it's supposed to be leading the way.

Besides, the demographic which likes these thrill rides the most is - I'm guessing - probably not the same group that spends the most money in the parks or visits the most often.

[fklhou]

I would prefer that Disney expand its existing parks before adding a fifth gate. I am curious about the announcements that are suppose to be coming out on Wednesday. I would love to see the Beastly Kingdom added to AK. AK is still one of my favorite parks but a few more rides would help.

I personally agree with DC78000 and Scoop that Disney does not need and should no concentrate on speed rides design to cause you to lose the contents of your stomach. Another nice family ride would be nice.

[YoHo]

Just to Voice my agreement on the no thrills E-Ticket. I've said it a million times before and I'll say it a million times again, High Speed thrill rides like Rollercoasters is a high stakes low margin buisness. People become bored with this kind of thing easily. That's why Disney MUST concentrate on there themeing with rides like this, but even when they do, Rides like Splash mountain, TT, ToT lose their luster after a while, they stop attracting people at the same level. You have two options, build a new one every year which would require you to lose profit and reduce cost and thus themeing on the rides you build, or build a ride that people will enjoy for years.

[airlarry!]

Dang it, Yoho, I was on a long streak of agreeing with all of your posts (hence Yoho!).

But, I disagree with your take on Splash Mountain. It is the perfect marriage of theming and adventure and thrills. It is not too scary that an 8 or 9 year old won't ride, but it is just thrilling enough that a 33 year old thrill-seeker will ride. It is one of those rides that *almost* every adult can ride with *almost* every young'un.

I realize that the wee folk won't ride. I realize that some people are nervous about the drop (although it really is tamer than it looks). But it comes the closest to giving thrills, with the irrestible story weaved with great music making it the one ride that every time we go has lines backed up forever. Try hitting that sucker in the June with 60 hour waits right after opening!

[YoHo]

Actually, I agree with you on Splash Mountain However I believe it has a height restriction and a Thrill aspect and that TYPE of ride is a thrill park staple. If every Thrill ride they made were up to Splash or BTMRR, or ToT. AND were interspersed amoung the parks, it would be all good

[airlarry!]

Agreed.

[Captain Crook]

Hey...Even I agree!!!:D :D :D
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[DVC-Landbaron]

Me three!!!!:bounce:

[Captain Crook]

What a consensus!

Landbaron...You must have got a new computer?

Being a good Disney parent, I must go watch Bugs Life with my daughter, tata...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[DVC-Landbaron]

Being a good Disney parent, I must go watch Bugs Life with my daughter, tata... Nah! Stay here and talk to me. I've seen it. Flick saves the day in the end. ;)

[All Aboard]

Captain, don't you have the DVD???

YoHo, a 40 inch height limit only locks out kids up to about age 3 and a half. ToT, Splash, BTMRR, TT, Star Tours, Body Wars & Dinosaur all have 40 inch limits. Kali River Rapids can be enjoyed by kids 38 inches tall. Our daughter (3 and 3 quarters) loves all of those attractions. She may be the exception, I don't know. She also really loves Spiderman (40").

These "so called" thrill attractions really are available to just about every guest who comes through the gates. Only the very youngest cannot experience them.

[Captain Crook]

Don't have DVD...Don't have DVD player, yet...Daughter laughs hysterically at Bugs Life...I can't resist. It's back on...Must go...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[DC7800]

Originally posted by gcurling
a 40 inch height limit only locks out kids up to about age 3 and a half. ToT, Splash, BTMRR, TT, Star Tours, Body Wars & Dinosaur all have 40 inch limits. Kali River Rapids can be enjoyed by kids 38 inches tall. Our daughter (3 and 3 quarters) loves all of those attractions. She may be the exception, I don't know. She also really loves Spiderman (40").

These "so called" thrill attractions really are available to just about every guest who comes through the gates. Only the very youngest cannot experience them.

These attractions are available to just about every guest, but that doesn't mean every guest that technically is "qualified" to ride can handle (or enjoys) such thrills. Splash Mountain is a great attraction, but unless you are willing and able to endure that drop you might as well be 39 inches tall. A lot of people, therefore, still are excluded from Splash, Dinosaur, and ToT who would really enjoy them.

I've been sorely tempted to give Splash a try next month. I'm guessing it's a ride the whole family would really love, except for that awful drop. Granted, it comes close to the right mix of "thrills and adventure"; just a little bit less extreme, and it really would be available to everyone. Well-executed thrill rides have a place in a Disney park - but with rare exception (the 2-3 per park mentioned earlier, perhaps) every ride should be enjoyable (or at least tolerable) by the entire family, from a 3-month old child to a 103 year old grandmother.

[Peter Pirate]

message type in dimwitted error & erased. Sorry.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[airlarry!]

I've been sorely tempted to give Splash a try next month. I'm guessing it's a ride the whole family would really love, except for that awful drop.

I am a bad person to ask--cause I will freely admit I am utterly biased when it comes to my favorite attraction, Splash Mountain--but if you are posting this as a question, the answer is an unqualified YES! My son, who was only four at the time and who doesn't enjoy height-based rides, will not ride....yet. But my daughter and her cousins have enjoyed this ride from age 5 above, and I know many kids younger who also do. It is not intolerably scary. I will not be a spoiler, other than to say the fifteen minutes before the 'drop' are some of the coolest theming of any state-side attraction. I can only imagine what WDW would look like if the guy who designed this mountain was allowed to design every attraction, from fun-loving, but family friendly A ticket all the way up to thrill-a-minute E ticket rides!

Well-executed thrill rides have a place in a Disney park - but with rare exception (the 2-3 per park mentioned earlier, perhaps) every ride should be enjoyable (or at least tolerable) by the entire family, from a 3-month old child to a 103 year old grandmother.

Well, numbers are subjective, but I for one wouldn't mind seeing 4 mountains in every Magic Kingdom! ;) 2-3 Splash-caliber attractions per park is a mite on the teeny side.

[DVC-Landbaron]

I really don't know how to tell you this... but... I think... there's a real good chance... that you... ah... posted to... THE WRONG THREAD!!!

:o :o :o :o :p :p :p :o :o :o :o

[King Triton]

I still say Disney made a huge mistake taking out World of Motion, Horizons and the old Figment ride at Epcot. Epcot hasn't been the same since. :( Disney needs to add more rides like Horizons to Epcot. How about a Horizons II ride? Come on Imagineers....let's get to work.

King Triton:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[airlarry!]

If every Thrill ride they made were up to Splash or BTMRR, or ToT. AND were interspersed amoung the parks, it would be all good

This is what I agreed to. ;)

[Bob O]

Regarding wdw and thrill rides IHMO the only true thrill ride on property is TOT. Some mention TT but most people travel faster on the freeway going to wdw than the ride does. RNRC is a ok coaster but not a thrill type coaster. Ive been on alomst 100 roller coasters and RNRC isnt a thrill coaster IMHO compared to rides you find in lots of other parks. If disney wants a true thrill type coaster they need to work with the coaster company B & M or build one with a height of at least 200ft. I dont think alot of true coaster/thrill ride fans are going to be impressed enough to come to wdw till a truely world class coaster is built. Now IOA accomplished this with Hulk and also added Dueling Dragons and IMHO the best thrill ride(non-coaster)Spiderman. Now disney hasnt even tried to compete with these rides or a true interactive ride like MIB. And these type of rides draw a younger crowd and as this crowd gets older i think alot wont look at wdw the same way we do. Disney doesnt need as many coasters as some coaster parks(though i would perfer it) but they do need some to draw away the audience that is now going to IOA and if rumors are true another thrill ride that will be built in US based on the Apollo 13 movie. And other than mssion space disney has nothing on the drawing board to use as a carrot to draw more people into the parks.

[SPAGo 98]

I think many people would consider a launched coaster with multiple inversions to be a thrill ride... I know I do, and I've been on several B&Ms and coasters over 200 ft tall...

[Bob O]

When it comes to coasters everybody has their opinions. All i know is ive been on alot better launched coasters IMHO. And when you see lists on different web sites ranking coasters ive never seen RNRC on one but ive seen numerous B & M coasters. When coaster enthusiast groups rank coasters you find none of disneys mentioned. This doesnt mean they are the be all to end all but if RNRC was that good it would be mentioned somewhere.

[YoHo]

Since when does Thrill=good?

Its a Thrill ride, it just isn't the most thrilling.

[daannzzz]

I used to love big coasters. The bigger the better. And spinning around was great. As I have gotten older (and the coaster have gotten bigger) I now tend to get nauseous and shacky riding those kinds of rides. From reading the message boards it appears there are alot of people like this. I don't know that Disney needs to compete with the HUGE Hyper coasters going in. I use to go to Six Flags and Great America but now I skip those parks and my Theme Park trips are all Disney.
I don't mind if Disney builds a hyper coaster as long as it is non obtrusive. If it includes and major scenes and effects I would hope they could put in another kind of conveyance so that everyone has a chance to see it.

[raidermatt]

I've been thinking more about the 5th gate, target markets and the such, and a true thrill park is starting to make more sense.

Here's how I see the timeline for a typical Disney guest:

Up to age 12 - Big on Disney theme parks.

Age 13-22 - Still a Disney fan, but probably just as happy to go to Six Flags. Wants the thrills, and doesn't want to be viewed as a little kid..

Age 23 until have children - Start to comeback to Disney more. Likes the thrills too.

Parents - Disney becomes their destination of choice again. The little ones love it, and they love to see their little ones love it.

Now, I know this is an extreme over-simplification, there are exceptions, etc, but I think it definitely has value.

So what does this tell us? Universal's primary target market is the market that Disney is weakest in, teenagers, and families with teenagers. Disney has always known this, but really hasn't had the caliber of competition in FL that Universal is providing.

What does Disney do? Well, one choice is do nothing about it, and let Universal have its market, while Disney concentrates on its current strength. But a 5th gate, that has world-class thrill rides and coasters, themed Disney style would allow Disney to keep some of the customers that they at least temporarily lose. A family with young children will still spend most of their time at MK, MGM and AK. As the kids get older, Epcot and the 5th gate get more of their time and money. When the children have children, its back to MK, MGM and AK. No longer does Universal become an automatic "must visit" for the thrill seekers.

Thoughts?

[raidermatt]

Let me also say that I agree with a lot of the other points made, two in particular:

1- I don't want to see many more height restricted rides in the current parks. One of the appeals of Disney is that our family, including 3-year old DS can go on rides that we all enjoy. We usually go with friends, and ride the big rides in shifts, but I don't want to do this all day. Since we hope to have little ones in our family for quite some time, we look forward to being able to enjoy Disney parks together.

2- I defintiely would like to see some new E-ticket attractions that aren't necessarily thrill rides. Rides like Pirates, Haunted Mansion, and Small World are one of the things that set Disney apart from everybody else.

[Bob O]

From having been to several events thru American Coaster Enthusiats at different parks most of the members their riding coasters were older and not younger. And im 40 and most were older than i am and were riding the coasters. I think disney needs more height restricted rides and not less for a more adult flavor like Universal, they have more than enough kid attractions though i wouldnt be against both being added. I would love a dark ride like Pirates but they dont seem to do that anymore, instead we get a weak ride like Dinosaur instead of a classic like Indiana the Eye of Mora.