View Full Version : Was the concept behind DinoRama a good decision?
After reading the thread DVCDave wrote regarding his thoughts on PrimEi$ner Whirl I was really struck by something....
Complaint after complaint come in that the area feels tacky & cheap. The defense of the area is "Well, the area is supposed to feel tacky & cheap...it's the theme for Chester & Hester's". And do you think the complaining guest feels better about the area after being told about the theme?
Was that a wise decision to make the area's theme? I mean they couldn't have built bug town? Same rides, same cost, same ammount of effort but at least the theme isn't "cheap & tacky".
mudhen
03-25-2002, 06:52 PM
People will be questioning the choice of this theme/back story
for awhile. I've yet to see it personally but from what I've
read, if the imagineers were going for cheap/tacky/carnival
type atmosphere, they hit it right square on the head.
Personal opinion here, there were probably dozens of ideas/
back stories/ themes on the table for this area. It wouldn't
surprise me if Chester and Hester were chosen on a cost basis
instead of an imagineering basis.
JeffJewell
03-25-2002, 07:48 PM
...I wouldn't be so bothered by DinoRama if I honestly felt it was an anomaly. But to me it seems like just the latest data point along the same sad slope.
It's just difficult for me to believe, when it became clear to even Disney's big-dog decision-makers that Animal Kingdom badly needed an addition, that "cheap and tacky" was the best concept Imagineering could come up with. It seems far more likely that the concept was created to fit the budget, rather than the other way around.
I feel pretty much the same way about Pop Century, Dinosaur, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire-Play It!, the All-Stars, Rock and Roller Coaster, and Mission:Space (assuming my sources are correct on M:S and the theme has changed from "flight into space" to "ride a space flight simulator"). When taken in context with Disney cereal, the ABC Family channel, the flood of straight to video sequels, and the theatrical release of DTV quality animation, to me the evidence seems overwhelming that the story, the heart and soul of traditional Disney entertainment, has taken a back seat to sheer, bald-faced profiteering.
How can we even say we're surprised that the "theme" for Animal Kingdom's newest expansion is old-fashioned hucksterism? It seems to fit the company's current preoccupation to a "t." Down this road lay Pick-pocketland and the Snake Oil Pavilion.
Jeff
toefungus
03-25-2002, 07:58 PM
My problem with the whole area is that is just doesn't fit AK at all. I believe that AK is suppose to make you feel like you are in Africa, Asia, ect, but not in a carnival. Where did they pull the carnival idea out of? If they were trying to theme it as a carnival type area they did a great job. It just doesn't fit Animal Kingdom!
Hey now, I'm sitting here eating my Micky Magic cereal watching whose line is it and I can't wait to see a Disney themed tawdry carnival.
Here's a thought for Mike and the boys, It would probably be a good thing if every aspect of the park struck at least a neutral chord even for the people who don't know the theme. In other words, People who see a new land for the first time should be wowed even if they haven't been wasting time at internet message boards talking about it for months.
You should never have to explain it to people.
JeffJewell
03-25-2002, 08:11 PM
I'm sitting here eating my Micky Magic cereal watching whose line is it and I can't wait to see a Disney themed tawdry carnival ...yeah, but you're, like, the poster-child for "there's one in every crowd."
Welcome back, amigo.
Jeff
:D
In all honesty, I have been watching ABC family more then I ever watched Foxfamily and it has nothing to do with company loyalty since I usually just stop while flipping.
The cereal on the other hand was on sale 2 for $4.
None of which is an excuse for Dinorama.
raidermatt
03-25-2002, 08:55 PM
Must.....withhold.....judgement until see...for.......myself............
I'm trying.
Without seeing it in person, my biggest inititial reason for being apprehensive is what toefungus said.
My problem with the whole area is that is just doesn't fit AK at all.
AK is a beautiful park, with a solid theme. The most significant criticism has been that there just isn't enough of it. But how does a tacky roadside carnival really fit in with the theme? It just doesn't. Even the official explanation is a major stretch.
That said, I'll even go a step further and say I'm not sure BK belongs either. AK is a tribute to, well, kingdoms of animals. And so far, they have all been real. Yes, the dinosaurs are extinct, but at least they were here at one time. BK is a fantasyland deal and I'm just not sure its the best choice for a theme. I would rather see AK add an oceanic land. Something similar to the Living Seas, but on a much grander scale, and of course with some great attractions. Another option would be an Australian land or an Arctic land, but I think the oceanic area has more options for different attractions that still work with the overall theme of AK.
The Reign of Fire coaster sounds like a blast, but maybe it would be better at MGM. (Or at a 5th gate, perhaps a Villains Park that targets BobO's family, er, I mean thrill-seekers;) )
Bob O
03-25-2002, 09:04 PM
I also think it was done on the cheap. It was something that could be thrown together quickly at a lot less cost than to do something new and innovative which has been the companies motto of late. Bk belongs because it was part of the original theme of the park when created but was stopped due to cost cutting and not because it was a bad concept.
Reign of fire would be a great addition but the last thing disney needs is another gate for thrillseekers when all their parks have gaping holes that need to be filled. The lasth thing we need is another half day park, the company already has 3 of these and doesnt need a 4th!!!
raidermatt
03-25-2002, 09:21 PM
Sorry, but I just can't agree that the other three parks have gaping holes. MK could use some tweaks, but its hardly in NEED. Epcot needs some updating, but it seems to be in the works, and has a lot to offer even in its current state. MGM is not yet mature, but has progressed beyond the "incomplete" stage.
Besides, as we know, tweeners and thrill-seekers aren't heading to WDW in droves anyway, and one or two thrill rides isn't going to get them in the door when Universal offers many more. So the goal of this 5th gate wouldn't be to take guests from the other 4 parks, but instead snag some Universal guests, as well as get more locals into the complex. One thing that the recession and more specifically 9/11 showed is that WDW is very reliant on international and resort tourism. That's fine, but when those things go south, so does WDW. And let's face it, all it takes is one significant "event" to make people afraid to get into airplanes again. A 5th gate that targets more locals and tweeners would help diversify WDW's revenue stream.
Of course I'd want this park done Disney-style (the "show"), and not Six Flags' style...
It wouldn't have much of a negative impact on the "keep families together" strategy, because those that wanted that type of stuff still have 4 parks. But those seeking big thrills would not need to leave the property like they do now.
I really think it would be a legitimate move.
And, I know, there is only a limited amount of capital and I've acknowledged that the existing parks still need some, but there still should be enough to go around. Especially with the new revenue that would come from this market Disney has not yet tapped.
Besides, there's also this matter of a 21 cent dividend Disney is paying every quarter. Eisner says he wants us to own a growth company, well, then use these funds for growth...
Bob O
03-25-2002, 09:35 PM
Disney needs to fix their current parks before even thinking of building a new one. MK has out dated attarctions and rides like 2k that were torn down years ago and havent been replaced yet. Epcot is also dated with rides that have outlived their usefullness and the shows in the countries have yet to be replaced, and they havent added a new country in years. MGM may need the least work but also needs work and Ak is still a half day park with the new additions being underwhelming and to fix these problems would take billions.
And would disney be willing to spend the money to outdo its competitor IOA????? The thrill rides would need to be bigger/better/faster and outdo the Hulk or Spiderman and what in disney's recent past has shown they are willing to do this. Spiderman itself reportedly cost over 100 million to build. And then if they did this, which would be great IMHO, you would still have to deal with all the whining from the people who dont like thrill rides, they would whine that new thrill rides were built but where is Horizons/WOM! Disney has shown they are alot more comfortable by taking their customers for granted, as they make more money that way rather than wowing them with new experiences.
raidermatt
03-25-2002, 10:03 PM
Remember, I'm talking about what Disney SHOULD do, not what they will do.
I have seen nothing to indicate they are even thinking about a 5th gate at all. I'm just saying they could continue with their tweaking of MK, DS and Epcot, do some significant upgrading of AK, while planning and constructing the 5th gate. And yes, they should out do Universal, but again, that's just what they should do, not what I necessarily think they would do.
The 5th gate would still be years away from opening, so there is plenty of time to make the needed additions to AK. Besides, the markets would not overlap nearly as much as it would first seem.
(And I still disagree in the extreme about MK, but I think that's just an agree to disagree situation).
I can't think of anything in the magic Kingdom that I would consider outdated. The fact that rides like Pirates and the HM still draw lines is a testament to the creativity inherent in th rides. most so called modern rides last for maybe a few years before they are relegated to the old hat pile.
As to Beastly, I can see it fitting in. It would fit in if we accept that AK real and truely is NAHTAZU.
I personally could go either way. The of a beatly kingdom would have to be less Disney Movie centric then fantasland and perhaps a bit more adult. (an ambiguous term to be sure.)
Personally, I think that concentrating on the zoo is an easier choice and we already know how I feel about an ocean area.
was it wise to put ANYTHING into your product and describe it as cheap and tacky?
dragonflymanor
03-26-2002, 08:01 AM
Bob O., while I enjoy the thrill rides myself. In terms of Disney, you have to think about the target market. Disney is going after the entire family experience and that means that thrill rides are on the fringes of the business. The are the extra something to make sure that the teenagers don't whine when going to Disney with the rest of the family.
I think it's been shown that when you compare minimum ride height limits, Disney has more attractions that are capable of being ridden by the entire family and younger children.
Thrill rides (especially the Coaster park idea), limit the number of potential riders and thereby limit the number of potential park guests. Disney, I think, is staying true to their target market in most cases. The idea of a family park with a few plusses for the teenager/thrill market makes good sense.
Second, the thrill market is extremely capital intensive. It's a giant pi**ing contest between parks. It basically comes down to who is willing to spend more money for the tallest, fastest, ____est (fill in the blank yourself) rather than who can create the most memorable experience.
Yes, Bob, I too love coasters. I ride every one in every park I go to. However, my wife doesn't like them and I go to parks to spend time with my family, not send them off while I ride solo. It may take several trips to ride them all at one or two per trip but I also get to spend more time with those that I love. That's what makes Disney parks wonderful to me.
We went to IOA last year and my wife couldn't stand the place because there was nothing for her to do in most places. IOA is a teenager/thrill park. She doesn't have any desire to go back and on our next trip I'm not sure if I will for the reasons I just stated.
My .02
DragonflyManor
barreloflaughs
03-26-2002, 08:14 AM
I just posted the following to the Primevial Whirl thread but it seems like it fits even better here....
QUOTE]The whole area of Dinoland USA is supose to be themed to America's love of nostalga (and dinosaurs, of course) so it seems that the Dino-Rama area would seem a natural[/QUOTE]
Hmmmm....I thought Animal Kingdom was supposed to be themed to Animals. Disney seems to be in the process of abandoning the theme here. Heck, if you are going to do a dinosaur section then do some imaginative dinosaur attractions not mid-20th century tourist trap kitcsh.
Don't get me wrong, I think Disney got off to a GREAT start with Animal Kingdom. It is a beautiful park with a great concept. I'm concerned that in their rush to increase attendance they are going to fill this beautiful space with junky, ill-concieved attractions.
If this is a trend then I think it is an unfortunate trend. The theming is out of place. Its kind of like sitting on the beach at the Poly and hearing the roar of race car engines.
carl
barrel of laughs
I think that it was two years ago that I stumbled on a test run for dino rama, at least for the boardwalk style games. We came off ctx, and they had put up some stands with pay as you go games, like hoop tosses and basketball shoots. This was before they built dca and paradise pier, so I've always thought that they were testing this new approach of boardwalk games for both dinorama and paradise pier. They had themed it a little - there was a "Chester and Hester's" banner that gave the impression that this was the road side carnival of C & H. There was a CM there with a tablet pc - I think one of those older apple models that are about the size of a notebook. He asked me if I had played any of the games and if I wanted to comment. Well, I wanted to comment, and I gave him an earful about my understanding of why Walt Disney wanted Disneyland to be different from carnivals and that this sort of huckster games was what he was trying to avoid, in my opinion. I talked with him for a while, but he wouldn't record my opinions because I hadn't played any of the games, and he only had questions relating to the games on his database. But he did say that he had heard some similar opinions. He just wanted ratings of the games themselves. I think that this was the genisis of dinorama.
I also probably had a bad hand in helping some mba figure out the 6 attraction idea. When we left animal kingdom we were stopped by the pollster. We had only came over a couple of hours before, and we really only came to do two things - the safaria and ctx. We had done both in a couple of hours and were quite content, that is all we had planned to do, and we were hopping over to the studio to ride tot and rnr before hopping to epcot for illuminations. The pollster asked Melissa and I how many attractions we had experienced, and we said "two." We were then asked how satisfied were we with the attractions we had experienced. Since we had only planned on seeing the two, we took the question to mean how much did we like the two that we had seen, not to mean "how satisfied are you that there were only two attractions in this park that were intersting enough for you to plan to see them today." We had both really enjoyed the safari and ctx, and told her that we were very satisfied, because we were. But then our agenda for that day wasn't typical for most people or even us - we had made a lot of visits around that time and that is all we were interested in that day. Anyway, I think I made a bad data point in someone's statistics. We were pretty clear to the pollster that we didn't think that this was a completed park, and I told her I hated the idea of the carnival games, but I am not sure that got recorded.
Anyway, I saw dinorama in January, the spin was going but not the whirl, and the booths were open. Honestly, it is a hunk of crap. The dinosaur area used to be pretty cool, but the colors and obnoxiousness of dinorama really took away from it. We rode ctx but not the spin. When you are right at CTX the theming wasn't distrubed by dinorama. But the entry into the dinosaur area was pretty bad. I didn't really like mulhulland madness, but I'm planning on riding the whirl with an open mind in May, in the hope that the spinning makes it better. I saw the video of it and it looks pretty horrible, in terms of the decorations. IMHO, it does come across as cheap, and just saying "the theme is that it is cheap" doesn't make it OK for dinorama or paradise pier. They are both pretty tacky (to be honest though, there are some things about paradise pier that aren't that bad; I thought that the zypher and stinger were pretty neat looking, even if they are pretty lame rides). Standard disclaimers about opinions and taste go here and everything.
And I agree, paradise pier, pop century, dinorama, jiyi, pop century, the cheapquels and even the 100 years parades all go together to me in terms of tacky and cheap and slapped together. I don't think that rnr coaster, ak lodge, cereal and juice, feature animation, the california downtown disney and grand californian, soarin', recent live action films, cirque, beach club villas, and hopefully mission: space fit with that, though. I'd keep everyone of the things in the second list, and drop all in the first. And he were are back to opinion and taste and all that, and I continue to wish that kali river was as cool as grizzly river.
DR
mattjs
03-26-2002, 11:30 AM
I think Animal Kingdom is a fantastic park so far and a solid foundation to build on. Haven't seen Dinorama yet so I'm trying to hold off judgement. BUT.........
.........the part about it that bothers me is not so much the spinner and the carnival games but more Primeval Whirl. Kids love the spinners so I have no problem with Disney adding a couple more. And as far as the carnival games go they just need to keep tyhe cost down and I think I'm ok with the concept in a limited use. But Primeval Whirl seems like a mistake to me. Not my idea of Disney at all.
Exposed metal with a coat of paint, boring cars and some big painted plywood signs? Looks like incredibly weak show. From my perspective, the presure's really on now to do Beastly Kingdom and to do it right.
raidermatt
03-26-2002, 01:31 PM
was it wise to put ANYTHING into your product and describe it as cheap and tacky?
Absolutely not. By going this route, the BEST case scenario puts you on the defensive, having to prove to guests that cheap and tacky is really a great product. Worst case, of course, is that guests won't like cheap and tacky no matter why its there. Neither scenario is optimal.
daannzzz
03-26-2002, 03:46 PM
I really liked the Dinoland area on my first few trips. I thought that after leaving CTX (Dinosaur) and going down the quiet path to Cester and Hesters it had a pleasent feel toit. Chester and Hesters was done correctly as far as roadside America goes. Even the mucic was great ( old country western). It had the feel of a movie. Beacause there were trees and shrubbs all around, it seemed off on its own and it worked. I don't have a problem with the roadside America part but with the new additions it is WAY overboard and not the right feel at all. Could they not have taken the money they spent and put in a smal boat or flume ride(that was an original design by imagineers) and taken you to see some more dinosaurs. They could have continued the Roadside America theme in this too with some allusions to "The biggest prehistoric cnake ever found" had a few small rapids and everyone could ride it. It would have been pleasent and fit into that area. While the triceratops spin is cute and fairly well done it seems that it was put in because it was part of a bulk purchase deal. The mouse coaster while I am sure it is fun (so is a "Slip'n Slide"), is hideous, and has killed this once charming area.
Bob O
03-27-2002, 02:21 AM
dscoop the disney company's half built parks are AK,DCA and Walt Disney studios Paris
dragonflymanor Why cant disney build rides for everyone!!! Why cant they build true thrill rides, coasters with 54" height limits that are world class and not family coasters that lack any real punch?? They arent going after my family with their new rides if they wont build a world class coaster!! IOA isnt a thrill park!!! Just because they have 2 great coasters, its not a thrill park!!! A tthrill park would have to have double digit coasters ala Six Flags/Cedar Point!!
Somebody mentioned that Ak has a good foundation. When you are charging people almost 50 to get in shouldnt you give them more than a fondation with a promise that maybe in a decade it will be a full days park??? Why should you pay full price now for the promise that someday they might complete the park???
raidermatt
03-27-2002, 03:37 PM
BobO, AK is a full day's park for some people. Clearly it needs a LOT more to suit you, but it just isn't targeted to you. Nothing wrong with that, but if you add more stuff with height limits, it means people like me have to make a choice. I can ignore the ride because my son can't, and my wife won't, go on it. If I do that, I'm not getting my money's worth, and Disney lost an opportunity to make my family happy because they chose to spend the money on a height restricted ride instead of something we can all enjoy.
You continually ask why they can't do both, and the answer is because there is a limited amount of capital that can be spent on a park. Every attraction is a choice. If they build one of each, family and thrill, they please everybody a little bit. You say Universal is not a thrill park, fine, let's call it a height restricted park, and a "motion-lovers" park. I know its hard for people like us to understand sometimes, but there are a LOT of people out their who can't even handle RnRC, or even Space Mountain. Disney has built its success on keeping the vast majority of its rides enjoyable for all ages. Most of the "kiddie" rides are enjoyable for many adults, unlike what you find at most parks.
It doesn't mean you or your family are not important to Disney, but it does mean that in order to give you what you want, they're going to have to give their core audience less of what they want. That's just not a smart move for them, and its why we're not likely to see any top-of-the ladder thrill rides at Disney anytime soon.
The only way I could support Disney doing this is in a separate gate, similar to what they did with Disney Pictures vs. Touchstone. It could still be called Disney, but allow the different market segments to each get what they want.
Luv2Roam
03-27-2002, 07:16 PM
Well -- it makes Paradise Pier truly look like a paradise. ;)
The cheap and tacky look is quaint -- but the whole area lacks Disney thrill and magic.
Looks more like Disney was just cheap -- period.
Bob O
03-27-2002, 11:56 PM
Raidermatt- If AK is a full days park for some people then they most move at a sloth's pace!!!! And by the same token by filling a park with few top-notch attractions im not getting my money's worth either and if you pay full price for AK NOBODY is getting their moneys worth if they are objective!!! Disney has more than enough capital to fill out their parks with rides/shows/attractions for everybody and by doing so would increase park attendance/hotel occupancy. But of course it cant be done when you pay out hundreds of millions to katzenberg/ovitz and make idiotic business decisions like their failed internet portal etc.
JeffJewell
03-28-2002, 07:01 AM
...whether or not any of us, individually, think AK is a "full-day" park... Disney's own guest surveys, referenced in Disney's own press releases, say that most people don't think there's enough to do, there. That was the one and only reason DinoRama exists: to put "more to do" in AK as cheaply as possible.
What the bickering does make clear, is that just because something is "there" to do, does not mean anyone in particular is going to care to do it. Personally, I can spend a potentially infinite amount of time on the Maharajah's Jungle Trek alone, just taking pictures of tigers; I doubt a lot of people will see my personal peccadillo as a reason to spend any more time in AK than they already do.
So there's two ways to look at "the concept behind DinoRama;" first, whether or not "cheap and tacky" is a theme that fits with Disney's tradition (of course not, don't be silly); and second, whether or not a "family" coaster with a 48" height restriction, carnival games, and yet another spinner, none of which have any link to Disney other than their zip code, will make more people stay in AK longer (and, more importantly, buy more food and souvenirs).
The jury's obviously still out on that one. Anybody care to make a wager that a year from now, the guest surveys at AK will start indicating that there's so much to do that teeming throngs of guests are coming back for a second day to get another helping of DinoRama?
I didn't think so.
Jeff
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.