DEBATE: Debunking the AK "half day" myth.

[DisneyKidds]

I shouldn’t do this, but what the heck – let’s reopen this can o’ worms.

While surfing the other boards I got to thinking (not a good idea :crazy: ) about AK. Let’s, once and for all, completely obliterate the “half day” concept as applied to AK.

First and foremost, let’s agree that any park can be a “half day” park for anyone, depending on their preferences. No matter where you go, if you don’t do most of the attractions it won’t take you as long as it would if you did. Secondly, let’s agree that you can do AK in half the time it takes to do MK, if you do everything – and let’s agree that the MK is a “two day” park, assuming that you do most of the attractions.

That being said………………

AK, the attractions, and the minimum time to see them (assuming relatively low crowds, fastpass, no 30 to 60 minute lines, and time to get to each attraction):

Lion King show............................45 minutes
Pocahontas show........................20
Kilimanjaro Safari.........................45
Planet Watch..............................45
Kali River Rapids..........................25
Asia walking trail.........................30
Africa walking trail.......................30
Bird show...................................20
Tough to be a Bug.......................30
Triceratops Spin...........................20
Primevil Whirl...............................25
Dinosaur......................................25
Boneyard....................................20
A couple character greetings.........20
Walk around Tree of Life...............10
Parade.........................................30
Tarzan show.................................45

Total..........................................485 minutes minimum.

That is over 8 hours and that is only doing the headline attractions. Try and do that in the summer with peak crowds and I shutter to think how much time it would take. That is without taking any time to explore and enjoy the intricate detail that can be found in the architecture, the plantings, etc. Add in a meal or two, do some shopping, see the acrobats and play the drums in Africa, gaze at the monkeys everyone walks by in Asia, see all the small animal exhibits – so many other things that could take time, but without them you still need 8+ hours to do most everything, without significant crowds.

So, as with any park, for those who don’t want to do everything the AK may only take 4 hours – but in that 4 hours nobody can claim that they saw the majority of what AK has to offer.

Good, I’m glad we put that to rest ;).

[space42]

Yup.. and EPCOT of 1983 was a 2 to 3 day park.

[DisneyKidds]

and EPCOT of 1983 was a 2 to 3 day park.
Saying they should have built AK to be the size and scope (attraction wise) as the MK or Epcot is a different debate entirely. Perhaps we will get into that once we all agree that AK is not a "half day" park ;).

ps - I'll give you 2 days for Epcot, 3 is a stretch.

[WebmasterCricket]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
So, as with any park, for those who don’t want to do everything the AK may only take 4 hours – but in that 4 hours nobody can claim that they saw the majority of what AK has to offer.


You are not getting the point of some of those who are stating it is a half day park.

In saying, "nobody can claim that they saw the majority of what AK has to offer", you have chosen to disregard what many feel is the point of calling it a "half day park". Whatever their reason for skipping certain things, these same people choose not to skip certain things at other non-half-day parks. Since the same point of view is used, to them it is only worth a half day.

Anyone can spend 4-5 times the amount of time that is needed to fill their tank at a gas station. If I was to check my oil, tire pressure, windshield fluid, trans. fluid, brake fluid, radiator coolant level... etc. it could take all day. I feel it is not necessary to do these things every time, therefore getting gas only takes a few minutes. If Mobil was to try and sell it as a 45 minute attraction, I would laugh in their face. :) Their logic and yours appears to be similar to me.

JC

[HB2K]

"It's Nahtazu"....that's what your post reminds me of....someone (or some department) trying to tell us we're wrong and you're right.

I'm sorry Mr. DisneyKidds. It's a half a day park. Period. And while you try to prove otherwise with mathematical equasions showing time lengths, etc I counter with this cold hard fact.

Attendance reflects this park's size & scope (as is). People's perceptions are that Animal Kingdom is not worthy of their vacation dollar. While there are some exceptions, Disney is not bringing in the majority of WDW guests to this park. It's a failure, and one that can't be fixed by marketing campaigns telling me otherwise.

If it looks like a zoo, acts like a zoo, and smells like a zoo, it's a zoo.

If it looks like a half a day park, it feels like a half a day park, it's a half a day park.

Also...

Magic Kingdom is not a two day park. It is a park which has attractions for EVERYONE which makes a full day for the whole family. If the kids don't like the thrill rides, they have Fantasyland & Toontown fair. If the teens don't like the dark rides, they have Frontierland & Tommorowland. The adults can enjoy the scenery, the rides, the shows, etc.

There's something for everyone there....and there's enough to where you don't need to experince every attraction in the park to stay a full day. You can leave things you don't like or just miss for your next trip.

On the other hand, the only way to make DAK a full day park is to experince EVERYTHING the park has to offer. What if I don't like thrill rides? That eliminates Kali, Dinosaur & Primevil Whirl. What if I'm with Children? What's there to do with them? A playground, a spinner and a safari? What if I don't care for shows? That leaves four attractions to see....which hardly makes a full day park.

You're concept of debunking the "half day" reality belongs with other Disney marketing brain farts such as the Nahtazu....

Face it....It's a zoo.

[DisneyKidds]

You are not getting the point of some of those who are stating it is a half day park.
No, I get there point. They are just wrong :p .
In saying, "nobody can claim that they saw the majority of what AK has to offer", you have chosen to disregard what many feel is the point of calling it a "half day park". Whatever their reason for skipping certain things, these same people choose not to skip certain things at other non-half-day parks. Since the same point of view is used, to them it is only worth a half day.
Mr. J - the only problem with this logic is that in using it the MK and Epcot can be considered only worth a half day by many as well. Someone skips much of what AK has to offer (for whatever their reason) and they can call the AK a 'half day' park, but if I skip much of what Epcot has to offer (for my own reasons) I'd be lambasted if I called it a 'half day' park. There is something inherently wrong about that.

The key in your statement is the phrase to them. I have no problem with someone stating that "given what I like to do, AK is only worthy of 4 hours of my time". That is a far different statement from those who say that Disney dropped the ball and didn't provide the guest with a park that could fill their $50 day and, as such, AK is a 'half day' park in general. In the AK Disney provided a full 8++ hours of entertainment, and you don't have to linger over obscure things to fill that 8++ hours. Some may not choose to avail themselves of that entertainment, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

While I'm at it, let's cut to the chase and open this up. It doesn't matter that AK might only be half the park that MK or Epcot are, as some are sure to claim. If MK and Epcot are two day parks, you have to pay two days admission. AK is a one day park for one days admission - either way it is the same bang for the buck. Spend $50 and you have $50 worth of entertainment available to you.

[Dznefreek]

Nah~ta~zu' Uh....yeah it is.

I recently saw a show on Discovery /TLC (?) in which Disney execs. said they were struggling to define what the park is,It is a Zoo! with attractions just like BGT (which is far superior) IMHO.

I remember when DAK opened and they kept stressing 1,000 animals. Big deal 30 were crocs about 60+ were fish, not to mention a number of birds. KS had 1 hippo when it first opened. Joe Rhode once said in an interview, "There won't be 1 or 2 but 20 -30 hippos surrounding your vehicle." I must have blinked and missed them.

[WebmasterCricket]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Mr. J - the only problem with this logic is that in using it the MK and Epcot can be considered only worth a half day by many as well.

Yup, you are right, and so are they.

...but if I skip much of what Epcot has to offer (for my own reasons) I'd be lambasted if I called it a 'half day' park. There is something inherently wrong about that.

You are right, there is something wrong with that. They would be as wrong in telling you EPCOT is not a half day park as you are in saying AK is a full day.

That is a far different statement from those who say that Disney dropped the ball and didn't provide the guest with a park that could fill their $50 day and, as such, AK is a 'half day' park in general.

Well that's another issue. My half day there may be worth $50. Value and time are different things that you are mixing in the same bowl. I'll refer back to the gas station here. The cost of gas would not keep me there longer or make me feel any different about a bad marketing effort.

Spend $50 and you have $50 worth of entertainment available to you.

That's right, but it's still only a half day park (zoo with rides).

JC

[raidermatt]

DK, you have made some good points.

You're absolutely right that one cannot experience all of AK in 1/2 day. No argument there, and I think I've even made that statement in the past.

If that's really the only point you are trying to make, we can stop there.

However, regardless of whether or not "1/2 day park" is the accurate term for AK, the park clearly has two major problems:

1- Not enough people want to experience all of AK. You could have 100 attractions, but if nobody wants to see them, people will say there's "nothing to do". It doesn't really matter if that's not an accurate technical statement. If people perceive there's nothing to do, or that its a 1/2 day park, that's all that matters.

2- Experiencing everything at AK still takes less time than experiencing everything at the other three parks. So whatever we consider MK to be, 2 day, 3 day, whatever, its clear that AK falls furthest away from that mark. It follows that if you offer less, fewer people will come. And again, it doesn't really matter what label they stick on it, "1/2 day", "empty", "boring", whatever. The point is that it has less value to the public than the other offerings on the same property. You can't do that and expect nobody to notice.


On a side note, as much as Disney didn't want AK to be called 1/2 a park, I bet they would be thrilled at this point if that label were being slapped on DCA...

[DisneyKidds]

Let's see who else we can shake out of the closet on this one. It has been too quiet around here, has it not?
Attendance reflects this park's size & scope (as is). People's perceptions are that Animal Kingdom is not worthy of their vacation dollar. While there are some exceptions, Disney is not bringing in the majority of WDW guests to this park. It's a failure, and one that can't be fixed by marketing campaigns telling me otherwise.
For arguments sake, let's agree that AK is a zoo, and it is a failure - that doesn't make it a 'half day' park. People might not go because they might not think the theme will appeal to them, but how many of the people who don't go have analyzed the park in advance and determined that is is a 'half day' park? Not too many. Not everyone who goes to Disney is a nut like we are, surfing bulletin boards assessing half vs. full day parks. You see, theme (zoo vs. nathazu :crazy: ), failure vs. success - those are entirely different debates. Let's assume that not a lot of people go, - you can play with your attendance figures all you want - for those that do go, there will be those that liked it, those that didn't, those that found enough to do, and those who thought there wasn't enough. Guess what, the same can be said about any of the other parks.
Magic Kingdom is not a two day park. It is a park which has attractions for EVERYONE which makes a full day for the whole family. If the kids don't like the thrill rides, they have Fantasyland & Toontown fair. If the teens don't like the dark rides, they have Frontierland & Tommorowland. The adults can enjoy the scenery, the rides, the shows, etc.
I'm not sure how others tour the parks, but I'll stick with Walt's idea of a park the entire family can enjoy together. I'll give you that the MK could be viewed not as a two day park, but a one day park that keeps everyone happy at the same time. However, to do that the kiddies will have to be in Fantasyland and Toontown (hopefully with an adult), the teens off seperately in Frontierland and Tomorrowland (with an adult?), while the adults are off enjoying the scenery and shows. Problem is - if you are a single family unit there are no adults to be enjoying that scenery or show. No, the way we do it, like many I will assume, is that the entire family goes to Fantasyland and enjoys that together, then we go to a show and enjoy that together, then to Tomorrowland, etc. Sure, I might sit out with the baby while the wife goes on Splash with the older child, but that is part of enjoying the park together.

Yes, the MK has lots of different stuff, but if it is enjoyed by the family together, as opposed to seperately, it grows to a two day park. Just like I enjoy riding Dumbo with my kids, so do I enjoy riding Triceratops. My wife might sit out with the baby while I take the older child on Kali, and so on - just like at any other park.

Everything you said about this with kids, that with teens, not liking show - only leaving so many attractions - can be said about any park. Not every park will be a full day park for every person, I agree - but that doesn't mean that there is not a full days worth of stuff to be done - especially if done by the whole family together.

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
While I'm at it, let's cut to the chase and open this up. It doesn't matter that AK might only be half the park that MK or Epcot are, as some are sure to claim. If MK and Epcot are two day parks, you have to pay two days admission. AK is a one day park for one days admission - either way it is the same bang for the buck. Spend $50 and you have $50 worth of entertainment available to you.

You are too hung up on the phrase, "half-day" -The point is it offers less and it has nothing to do with experiencing everything....it has to do with offering ENOUGH. As someone else pointed out- the whole day at MK is not to do everything....it it that there is enough there for EVERYONE to find ENOUGH to do to fill the day....that is possible by offering more-more rides, more variety, more. AK offers less- less rides, less attractions, less variety. LESS.

And these feeble defenses of AK fail to address the real problem- why does a new park have falling attendance EVERY YEAR it has opened...every year it's attendance is lower than before despite their attempts to build interest...the more people see the less they want to return and the less they tell their friends to return...

I also expect the AK lovers will try to make something out of a possible bump in attendence coming up but it may be a fluke of statistics...AK never was an EE park until now...attendence measures only the first park people visit... now that AK is an EMH/EE park some may go there before the more popular parks open two days a week when previously they would not have gone to AK at all or certainly not first....so don't be surprised it the attendence jumps up and Primeival Whirl and Dinoland are hailed as smashing successes!

Paul;)

[Another Voice]

“Good, I’m glad we put that to rest.”

Yes, assuming that everyone on this planet has exactly your interests. Sadly, people tend to like different things.

You would never demand that I see each and every movie that showing at the local multiplex – why should I have to see each and every show & attraction at a theme park. If the theater isn’t showing a movie I want to see, I stay away. If a theme park doesn’t offer shows I want to see, I stay away too.

This whole “blame the stupid guests” argument for the failure of Animal Kingdom and California Adventure is a major problem for Disney right now. An entertainment company is only successful if it pleases its audience. And you can’t brow beat them into submission. Even trying distracts from the real problems – and the real solutions.

It’s a simple rule that I try to follow – fixing the problems saves you all the time and bother of coming up with a consent string of excuses.

[DisneyKidds]

They would be as wrong in telling you EPCOT is not a half day park as you are in saying AK is a full day.
But here is the rub, while I might only invest a half day of my time in Epcot, I can most readily admit that there is two days worth of stuff to be done there. It may be a half day park for me, but I would never say it was a half day park, period.

Many of those who label the AK don't seem to recognize that AK is chock full of a full days enetertainment, even if they choose not to see it. Or at least they won't admit it.

Again, any statement prefaced with "for me" is fine. No one could be wrong in stating something as it relates to them. However, it would not be, and is not, wrong of me to say that the AK has a full days entertainment if you choose to see it.

If that entertainment doesn't move people to want to see it - well that is a different discussion.

[PKS44]

Maybe you skipped or ignored or did not get my post...."half-day" is just a phrase...- it is shorthand for a lesser entertainment offering- it is not a literal description.

[DisneyKidds]

You are too hung up on the phrase, "half-day"
Maybe so. Concede that AK is packed with a full days worth of stuff to do (even if some don't want to do it), is not a 'half day' park, and has other problems and we can move on to discussing those problems ;).
“Good, I’m glad we put that to rest.”Yes, assuming that everyone on this planet has exactly your interests. Sadly, people tend to like different things.
Geez, you guys are no fun anymore - did you miss that slightly sarcastic winkie :confused:. But while we are on it, how come those who so wisely realize that people tend to like different things would never think to call Epcot or the MK a half day park - even thought there are some who might like different things and struggle to fill a half day there?
You would never demand that I see each and every movie that showing at the local multiplex – why should I have to see each and every show & attraction at a theme park. If the theater isn’t showing a movie I want to see, I stay away. If a theme park doesn’t offer shows I want to see, I stay away too.
Fine, well, and good. I never said you had to see anything, but I am saying it is there to see. Let's stick with your multiplex. If there are no movies you want to see, or lets say you might even want to see 4 out of 8 movies being shown, are you going to say the theatre isn't showing anything, or is only half a theatre? I didn't think so ;). Now, they might not be showing anything you want to see, but they still have a whole multiplex worth of movies.
This whole “blame the stupid guests” argument
Now AV, let's not jump the gun. I have yet to go forward with anything about guests not "getting" the AK. Perhaps later :crazy: ;).

[WebmasterCricket]

Originally posted by PKS44
Maybe you skipped or ignored or did not get my post...."half-day" is just a phrase...- it is shorthand for a lesser entertainment offering- it is not a literal description.

I guess a definition of "half day" is in order here.

JC

[WebmasterCricket]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
But while we are on it, how come those who so wisely realize that people tend to like different things would never think to call Epcot or the MK a half day park - even thought there are some who might like different things and struggle to fill a half day there?

Alright, I'll play along. If it wasn't for the food, fireworks and or parade keeping me there late, I would call EPCOT a half day park.

JC

[DisneyKidds]

I guess a definition of "half day" is in order here.
Good idea. Care to take a stab?
I would call EPCOT a half day park.
Ahhh, how I love to take a quote out of context :eek: ;).

For arguments sake, let's say you are on a restricted diet, ToD has ended without replacement, and Illumination is nixed due to drought and fire. There - no food, fireworks, or parade - for the whole summer. Would you say that Epcot is a half day park for everyone, or just for you?

[raidermatt]

Ok, lets try it again.

1/2 day is a term thrown around to describe how people FEEL about the park.

Whether they are labeling their feelings accurately or not is completely irrelevant.

What is very relevant is how they FEEL about the park. If it FEELS like a 1/2 day park to the guests, then Disney missed the mark.

Breaking it down to the number of attractions multiplied by the amount of time needed to ride them does not solve anything. If it did, your local library would be an extremely popular theme park.

Now, if you are trying to figure out how to fix the problem, you have to look at the reasons why folks say its a 1/2 day park. When you do that, you'll find that the problem is there isn't enough of WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO DO. Yeah, there's enough to do to fill a day, but again, the same can be said of the public library down the street.

A park with 10 "must see" attractions is going to be labeled a 1/2 park a lot less than a park with 2 "must see" attractions and 20 "lame" ones.

Its all about the quality AND appeal of what is there, not just how much stuff there is.

[raidermatt]

If we are going to go on, we have to let go of our personal opinions of the various parks, and instead focus on what Disney guests as a whole think.

Otherwise, we can go on for months because person A likes Epcot but hates AK, while person B loves MGM but hates MK, etc, etc, etc...

[WebmasterCricket]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Good idea. Care to take a stab?

No way! It's your post and I work here. ;)

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Would you say that Epcot is a half day park for everyone, or just for you?

I would not, nor would ever say either. I cannot quantify or qualify what others would think of any attraction. When anyone is stating if something is "worth their time", the notion of "what I think" becomes implied because it is "their time" and not "everyone's time.

Removing the food, fireworks and parade from the equation, I would say that to many returning guests, much of the park (EPCOT) would be skipped.

Many other non-Disney parks are plaigued with early exits. That's why they offer "after 4" tickets and late night laser shows or whatever. EPCOT is no different. Eliminate those three things mentioned earlier and EPCOT would be a ghost town after 6 PM (at least that's what I think).

JC

[WebmasterCricket]

On a side note, I might just stay late at EPCOT to look at the fiber-optic sidewalks, but I'm weird like that. :)

JC

[PKS44]

Disney defined what a theme park experience SHOULD be originally. Now they are trying to re-define it...and in doing so they have desperately tried to define it down...down in size, scope and expense (to them) This has failed.

AK did not become a lesser park (half-day) by accident...it was a strategic decision...the same as the decision to build MGM smaller, DCA smaller, Paris studios smaller--why? Because the investments in DisneylandParis, and Epcot did not pay off quickly enough (the reasons for that differ but nevermind)...they figured if they just lowered the initial outlay for new parks the low pay off seen with those other parks would equal profits instead of loss since they would invest less initially...they stated as much in the old DCA article raidermatt posted a few days ago---they have miscalculated apparently 3 times now and still no sign that they get it...(rumor has it they mocked Oriental Land Company for investing so much on Disney Seas-again a miscalculation)

They do not understand the idea of investment for the future and the importance of protecting your brand identity--they do not understand their core competancies their strengths or how to build on them....

AK < the other WDW parks--not because anyone says it appeals or does not appeal to enough people---it was designed to be that way..in this they succeeded.

[disneychrista]

To fully experience AK it takes in my opinion at least one day from park open to park close and likely you will still need more time. But this is to "fully experience" the park. Meaning going on all the rides, seeing all the shows, doing all the walk throughs etc etc etc. I agree 100% that you can not say you saw all of AK in less then 6 hours. Sure you can experience what you want to in that amount of time but not the entire park.


There is no such thing as a "half-day" park because no park, is open for that long :p :jester:

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by PKS44
Disney defined what a theme park experience SHOULD be originally. Now they are trying to re-define it...and in doing so they have desperately tried to define it down...down in size, scope and expense (to them) This has failed.

AK did not become a lesser park (half-day) by accident...it was a strategic decision...the same as the decision to build MGM smaller, DCA smaller, Paris studios smaller--why? Because the investments in DisneylandParis, and Epcot did not pay off quickly enough (the reasons for that differ but nevermind)...they figured if they just lowered the initial outlay for new parks the low pay off seen with those other parks would equal profits instead of loss since they would invest less initially...they stated as much in the old DCA article raidermatt posted a few days ago---they have miscalculated apparently 3 times now and still no sign that they get it...(rumor has it they mocked Oriental Land Company for investing so much on Disney Seas-again a miscalculation)

They do not understand the idea of investment for the future and the importance of protecting your brand identity--they do not understand their core competancies their strengths or how to build on them....

AK < the other WDW parks--not because anyone says it appeals or does not appeal to enough people---it was designed to be that way..in this they succeeded.
CLAP........CLAP...........CLAP................... ..CLAP.......................

Bravo. Well said. I don't necessarily disagree. However, the question at hand is not whether AK is as much of a park as MK, or if AK is a success, or if AK was a strategic mistake. We can talk about those.

But................can you "do" AK in a half a day? That is my only question/point right now. We'll move on to the rest after we resolve this point. I will define "do" as a family experiencing together the majority of the major rides and attractions that the AK has to offer and getting a true taste of what the park is all about.

So someone might not like animals, so they might not like the walking trails or safari. However, to truely "experience" the park, to "do" the park, they still have to see them. If they don't see them, they are in no position to judge the park. Now, if they see them and don't like them, and never see them again - that is a different problem, and one we can discuss further - but first things first.

[WebmasterCricket]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
But................can you "do" AK in a half a day? That is my only question/point right now. We'll move on to the rest after we resolve this point. I will define "do" as a family experiencing together the majority of the major rides and attractions that the AK has to offer...

No, you can't.

...and getting a true taste of what the park is all about.

Yes, you can.

I think you had made your point valid right up 'till that last part there.

"Is that a Yak? Yup, it's a Yak. Next!"

JC

[All Aboard]

We are about to embark on our annual 8 day January trip to WDW. I'm estimating that we will spend around 50 hours in theme parks during that time. The plan is to spend about 4 of those 50 at AK. In that time we'll experience everything we want to do there and have no reason to return during this trip. Whatever you want to call it, that's the value of AK to us.

---edit----

OK, I went into my spreadsheet to look at the daily plans and have estimated the following time spent in each park"

MK - 17 hours
Epcot - 16
Studios - 6
AK - 4
USF - 4
IOA - 4

Total - 51

The USF/IOA day will just be my daughter and me since we did not renew my wife's annual pass.

[WebmasterCricket]

Originally posted by gcurling
...we will spend around 50 hours in theme parks during that time. The plan is to spend about 4 of those 50 at AK...


Oooooh! Real life entrance poll sampling numbers. I like it! http://disboards.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

JC

[DisneyKidds]

Yes, you can.
IMHO - that is just silly. Back to that person who doesn't like animals and doesn't do the walking trails or the safari. They got a true taste of the park? Pish!!!!
In that time we'll experience everything we want to do there
As I always used to get beat over the head with :crazy:, leave likes and dislikes out. It is fair that you will see everything you want to see in those 4 hours, but would you not agree that there is a whole lot more that you could do in the AK if you were so inclined? The fact that you don't want to do it is a different problem.

While we might spend more than 4 hours in Epcot, the majority of that time is seeing the same things more than once. Add up the individual things we want to see in Epcot and we wouldn't get to more than 6 hours, but I'm not about to call Epcot a half day park. I know better and realize that, while I may not want to do it, Epcot has more to offer. I don't think many give AK that same consideration.

[raidermatt]

But................can you "do" AK in a half a day?

I will define "do" as a family experiencing together the majority of the major rides and attractions that the AK has to offer and getting a true taste of what the park is all about.

If you are the perceptive type, you can get a true taste of what just about any park is all about by reading the descriptions, taking a stroll through the place, and experiencing a few attractions.

Using your "new" definition, as opposed to the "every attraction" definition, yes, it is very possible to "do" AK in a 1/2 day, even if required to experience a majority (more than half) of the MAJOR attractions. Of course, crowds are a factor in this.

But even if you disagree, or go back to the "every attraction" definition, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? (not shouting, just emphasizing...)

Everybody has already pointed out that "1/2 day park" is a subjective term, and if you try to use it objectively by counting attractions, it doesn't work. You can count attractions to say it is "less" of a park, but even that doesn't matter that much, because APPEAL is just as important (and really even more important) than QUANTITY.

[DisneyKidds]

If you are the perceptive type, you can get a true taste of what just about any park is all about by reading the descriptions, taking a stroll through the place, and experiencing a few attractions.
How do I say this without being offensive, because this is all in good fun................This wins my rediculous statement of the Disney Decade award. :crazy: Remind me never to tour the parks with you ;).

As for polling, our post Thanksgiving trip probably includes about 60 hours of park time over 9 days. 24 MK, 12 each MGM, Epcot, and AK.

Matt, you are right, appeal, attendance and $$$$ are all that matter in the end. So, if people don't come back and spend time, there is a problem. I agree that AK has problems. However, I don't think adding another 10 attractions is going to solve those problems, do you?

[raidermatt]

How do I say this without being offensive, because this is all in good fun................This wins my rediculous statement of the Disney Decade award. Remind me never to tour the parks with you .
Ah, but I never said this is how I tour parks. This just means that there hasn't been a park where I couldn't get a decent read on what the park is about by reading about/looking at the attractions, soaking in a bit of atmosphere, and partaking of a few of the attractions.

That does not mean other individual attractions cannot WOW me, or that I skip everything else. Its just that I have a decent idea of what the park is about by that time. It also does not mean I know what to expect on every attraction either. Again, it just means I have a "feel" of what the park is about.



I agree that AK has problems. However, I don't think adding another 10 attractions is going to solve those problems, do you?
If its 10 more of the same, then no. It gets back to my analogy of a library. If people don't want to read, they aren't coming to the library no matter how many books you have. Likewise, if people (in general) don't like what AK has or is about, adding more of the same won't change that.

10 more of the same would have some positive impact on attendance, because those who do already like the park would likely spend more time there. Those who don't like it don't go anyway.

But the positive benefits would be much greater by doing additions/replacements that are in tune with what the Disney audience wants. Geez, even 2-3 of these could have a very significant positive impact. That wouldn't "finish the job", but it would definitely help.

My personal opinion is that the look and feel of AK isn't that far off the mark from being a very successful park. However, there isn't enough in the way of attractions that do hit the mark, and the DR addition is a huge step in the wrong direction.

All of this goes back to an attempt to give the guests a park with minimal investment, and then incorrectly evaluating the response. Its the product of a bad philosophy, and then the problem is compounded by poor execution. Only the fact that there are/were some imagineers and others that were creative and tried their best saved the place from an even worse fate.

Unfortunately, because of an incorrect diagnosis of the problem, Disney went even further in the wrong direction with DCA.

[Bob O]

i would agree with HB2K and the points made by PKs44.
Now if you want to walk around in a slothlike manner you can easily spend a whole day at the park. But as evidenced by the attendance the park gets and the waits in lines and how the park empties out way before park closing the people go to the park see what they feel are good attractions and then fleee the park where they go and spend their time on things they feel are more important!!!! If this wasnt the case the park wouldnt have attendance problems nor have the rest. go beggin for customers near closing time.
While some may wish the park was a full day for most people, that doesnt ,make it the case and attendance numbers dont lie!!
Now if the park would have been built properly like it was planned for the park would easily have a full days worth of activities and wouldnt have the attendance problems it has. But of course disney built it on the cheap and got rid of whole area's of the park under the belief that if they build it people will come. Which hasnt happened at AK and the same holds true for DCA. AS both a zoo and a theme park it fails in both catageroies and doesnt nkow really what it wants to be when it finally grows up into a full days theme park.

[PKS44]

An attempt at another analogy- Restaurants---I want a hamburger---I can get one at some express place that only offers a limited menu or I can get one at a restaurant with a more full and varied menu---I may enjoy the hamburger at both places BUT they are not both FULL restaurants....AK is not as limited or narrow in the themepark world as say McDonald's Express is at the airport...but the idea is the same....the term half-day is but a short-handed way of saying it does not measure up to a full experience expected at a Disney themepark...and it does not invite the lucrative repeat visits a park needs the way the more fully developed parks do...so can you do EVERYTHING in a half a day?- no..so what? And yes, I do think that 10 additional attractions would help IF they were of Disney quality (old time)-innovative, whimsical, clever, well themed-not ever done on the cheap. A Beastly Kingdom addition, Australia and or South America additions would be a huge help. But NOT just more animal exhibits...zoo like additions are not what this park needs or is lacking...it needs to distinguish itself from a zoo...my local zoo is FREE and it's newer animal exhibits are every bit as themed and as good as the trails and exhibits at AK--even if you disagree- there is no way the difference is worth $50/day.


Paul

[WebmasterCricket]

Did you just say "Pish"? :)

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Pish!!!!

Why yes, you did just say "Pish"! :) What's up with that?

On my first visit, I gave AK the benifit of the doubt and did everything I could. Did it take me more than a few hours, yes.

Was it worth me spending more than a half day there, no.

My perception of it's "true taste" was correct in the first hour or so, which validates my point. Sure AK had more time consuming activities to fill my vacation hours, but I did not need to be there more time to determine that.

I'd rather play golf, and I don't play golf.

JC

[PKS44]

As Mark Twain is rumored to have said: "Golf is just a good walk, spoiled."

[DVC-Landbaron]

Day off of work, Mr. Kidds? Or perhaps we just didn’t take our meds today! Anyway, you certainly hit the mark (if your intent was to stir the pot a little, as I guess it was). You even brought me out of semi-retirement. But not to argue your tired (and rather slanted) position. No!! Instead a little sentence caught my eye a couple of posts ago. I agree that AK has problems. Care to delineate those problems from your perspective?

And…However, I don't think adding another 10 attractions is going to solve those problems, do you?Why wouldn’t “adding another 10 attractions” (assuming of course they were “Disney” attractions) help?

[SnackyStacky]

I'll bite. If we use your figures (which I think are flawed, but like I said...I'll bite) sure, Animal Kingdom is a full day plus park.

BUT, that's in theory. (Once again, a very flawed theory) In practicality, it is a half day park because not everybody likes everything that's there. The big difference is that in someplace like the Magic Kingdom, if you don't do the stuff you don't like, there's still plenty of choices!

If you don't like 50% of what's available at the Magic Kingdom, that still leaves about 25 choices to do things. (I recall reading at one point that attraction count at the magic Kingdom was about 55 or so?) If you don't do 50% of what's available at Animal Kingdom, that's about 9 attractions. NINE?! And that's including character greetings. Calling character greetings an attraction is a REAL stretch.

Let's face it, no matter what they do, even if they have 200 E-Ticket rides, not every ride is going to be for everybody. There are VERY few people who do each and every last attraction in every park.

[gbxxxi]

Hi!

I have been reading these boards for quite a while, but never quite felt like posting a reply until now (some of you can be a tad intimidating! :D ). So - I figured, I might as well chime in on this topic.

I do not think that it is possible for any of you to determine what is a "half-day" park for everyone else. A half-day park for me may not be the same as a half-day park for you and vice versa.

That is what makes Disney so special! There is something there for almost everyone - except for maybe the hardcore thrill seekers....

For my wife and I, AK is at least a full-day park. The Studios would be the only non-full-day park for us and even that is an 6 to 8 hour park for us when we go.

It is a personal feeling as to what constitutes a half-day park or not. It is not something that is so cut and dry that a park can be labeled a half-day park for everyone. Just my two cents.....

Mark

[disneefamily]

Disnee Dad Says............................. How did you calculate the numbers on the first post? We waited less than 5 minutes for the Safari and it seemed about 20 minutes long, not 40. Rode Kali River Rapids twice in 20 minutes, and didn't even have to get out of the raft. Rode Primevil Whirl 3 times in 20 minutes. Tricera Top Spin in about seven minutes. Waited about 15 minutes for Lion King and still had great seats Got FP for Dinosaur,before Primeval and TriceraTop so walked on and the ride is only ten minutes including the preshow. Did 62.5% of the park in half a day. Skipped Rafiki's PLanet Watch, thats 4 "attractions" You can do in less than hour. I guess I could stare at " Discover the Stories Behind the Magic" for five minutes, same thing for "The Oasis Exhibits" Walk through JUngle Trek and Exploration Trail and hit Pocahontus on the way out. That's 92% of the park in six hours, skipping only the parade and Tarzan rocks. I'm sure many people consider 6 hours in a park only half a day. I'm in at 8, out by 2 and can spend 6 hours at EPCOT. Wait, add 20 minutes to eat lunch. So it's a 3/4 day park to see every little thing they have.

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by gbxxxi
Hi!

I have been reading these boards for quite a while, but never quite felt like posting a reply until now (some of you can be a tad intimidating! :D ). So - I figured, I might as well chime in on this topic.

I do not think that it is possible for any of you to determine what is a "half-day" park for everyone else. A half-day park for me may not be the same as a half-day park for you and vice versa.

That is what makes Disney so special! There is something there for almost everyone - except for maybe the hardcore thrill seekers....

For my wife and I, AK is at least a full-day park. The Studios would be the only non-full-day park for us and even that is an 6 to 8 hour park for us when we go.

It is a personal feeling as to what constitutes a half-day park or not. It is not something that is so cut and dry that a park can be labeled a half-day park for everyone. Just my two cents.....

Mark
I like the first post - and hope we see more. Well, said!!!
How did you calculate the numbers on the first post?
Using an absolute off season, ultra low crowd example is not going to provide any kind of useful analysis when you have people who are going in both January and June, so I looked for more balance, and still went with short numbers.

First off, as I said - my numbers include some time to actually make it to where the ride is and that is good for 2 to 5 minutes. So, lets take Kali. First - if you did 2 rides in 20 without getting off it means that the first ride took 15, and I can personally attest to waiting in the line for 5+ minutes with a FP - I rest my case on that one. Primevil - I assume they didn't make you get off that one either - so again, the first ride had to be almost 15, with no line. First week of December I rode, with FP, and waited for about 10 minutes in the line. Triceratops I have ridden in 5 minutes, but have also taken 25. You waited 15 minutes for Lion, plus it took you 5 minutes to walk there and the show is what, at least 20 minutes - add it up. The amazing thing about the Disney parks is that things take you more time than you think, when you consider everything. You need to look at averages in these kinds of analyses - and I went on the low side of average.
If we use your figures (which I think are flawed)
Bring it on my Snacky friend ;), I defy you :crazy:.
Day off of work, Mr. Kidds? Or perhaps we just didn’t take our meds today!
Good to hear from you too, Baron :). They never should have let me out of the home (hehehehehe, bwaahahahahahahaha). Lots o' people coming out of the woodwork - you know you love it!!!! Ah, responding to the Baron in the late night. Just like old times ;).
Why yes, you did just say "Pish"! What's up with that?
As per Websters..................

Main Entry: pish
Pronunciation: 'pish
Function: interjection
Date: 1592
-- used to express disdain or contempt

So, once again, pish!!! ;).
There are VERY few people who do each and every last attraction in every park.
Agreed. But does Disney design parks for individual people? I say no. I believe they are designed for families. AK is well designed for most average families - you know the ones with 2.5 kids. IMHO, if you are a family consisting of two parents and two or three kids ranging in age from 3 to 15, AK will take time. Sure, not everyone is going to ride everything, but if you hit them all together as a family you will spend significant time. While not everyone will like every ride, chances are that within a family of 5 there will be at least one person who does like each of the rides. I might like 4, wife likes 3 others that I don't, junior likes a couple others we didn't hit, and little Bobby another, and Janie a few more. So amongst the whole family you will likely hit most everything. Sure, the same thing in MK takes two days, but no way a half day at AK.

For the individual person, yeah the AK has problems filling a day if that person only wants to hit favorites. Any park can be done in 'half time' if that is all you do, MK included. But MK was designed to be a two day park, and AK a one day park.

PS - In my double blind survey of family park touring trends it turns out (so far) that 9 out of 10 families prefer touring together. So, if you are a family of 5, each family member having 3 different AK favorites (not a stretch by any means) you are going to have to cover just about all of the true attractions. No way you do that and keep everyone happy in a half day.

[ASFCurly]

I think a big problem with Animal Kingdom is that people don't really give it a chance because they assume they won't like it.
When I went on my last trip (only trip so far) I really didn't want to go, I really thought it would be stupid, but my Mom really wanted to, so we compromised and right before we left the last day we went to AK and did Lion King and Safari, I liked the AK so much when I actually got there, despite the fact that I thought that it would be dumb that I really didn't want to leave after only doing those two things, and this is from someone who went very relunctantly and wouldn't have gone at all if my Mom hadn't come.

[sorcerermikey]

Most everyone who "disagrees" with you, for lack of a better way of putting it, has conceded that "half day" is just shorthand for saying AK is LESS. The perception that it is less is even reinforced by the closing time. And yes I know all about the animals need to go to sleep rationale but why does it close at 5:00 most of the year but 6:00 on Holiday week. Yes hours are cut back across the board but it still closes earlier than the others regardless of peak/off peak. This is perceived by many as Disney advertising it as LESS.
It could take 3 days to do it, or 4 or 5 but it the point remains it's LESS than the others.
Please answer Baron's questions. What do you perceive as the problems and why wouldn't 10 more attractions change it? The more interesting debate is what would "fix" it.
Does this come across as a bit uppity for a first post from a lurker? I apologize in advance if it does, certainly didn't mean to.

[SnackyStacky]

Bring it on my Snacky friend , I defy you .

I don't have access to exact times, nor do you. You're only going on YOUR experiences. When I said I thought they were flawed, I didn't mean that mine would be right, just that nobody can be sure. So, defy this Kidds! :smooth:

Agreed. But does Disney design parks for individual people? I say no.

You're absolutely right. They don't. But you even agreed that people who like EVERYTHING are in the minority. If you're a family, traveling with kids, maybe it is a full day park.

So I'll restate my opinion, choices are limited at the Animal Kingdom. Because as many have said, trying to label it half day or full day is way too personal. For you, it's a full day park, for me it's a half day park. But anyway you care to talk about it, the attractions are limited, the hours are limited, and quite frankly the park is limited.

The detail is gorgeous. There's lots of it. But that's an aside. The purpose of a theme park is rides. THAT'S how you keep people there. The rest is how wonderful of an experience you're going to have, but what the heck good is it if there's not enough there to hold somebody's interest.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Good to hear from you too, Baron :). They never should have let me out of the home (hehehehehe, bwaahahahahahahaha). Lots o' people coming out of the woodwork - you know you love it!!!! Ah, responding to the Baron in the late night. Just like old times ;). Typical Mr. Kidds!! :crazy: A non-answer answer!! You didn't happen to work for the Nixon White House back in the '70's, did you? If not it's too bad. You're a natural!!

Now!! How about answering the question!

Thanks.

[Bob O]

The excuse that the animals have to go to bed is total BS!!!!!
Why can other zoo's and parks like Busch Gardens Tampa Bay be open much later and their are no reports that any animal is suffering in the least!!!
That isnt the reson the parks close early, the lack of any crowds in the late afternoon is why the park is closed early which answers the question posted!!!!
If the park had a full days worth of activites then you would have long lines until the park closed with rests/ shops opened to serve the customers, but that isnt needed because people leave way before the scheduled closing time because they run out of things to do!!!
And this is why Epcot/MK have long lines till park closing, they are full day parks and its easier(unless one wears blinders or has overdosed on pixie dust ) too see the difference!!
The guests speakwith their feet and they use them to leave AK earlt because they have done all they want to do,but if their was more to do they wouldnt leave as early as they do!!

[Jeff in BigD]

I only skimmed through the first page, so apologies if I retype points already made.

The thing is, sure, they have filler, but how many of this attractions can be called e-ticket? Dinosaur is a poor man's Indy, it's sad to know what it could have been & the sad reality of what it actually is. Primeval Whirl is an eyesore. Safari is decent, but it's one of those rides most people only ride once a trip - unlike something like Haunted Mansion. Tough To Be A Bug is cool, but it just doesn't have that "Oomph" to make it a marquee ride - also seems like most people only sit through it once per trip. I also think the park itself is designed poorly, layout-wise.

The fact that the park opens at the butt crack of dawn & in the late afternoon does nothing to dispell the zoo label. A lot of people on vacation want to do something they're not able to the other 50 weeks of their year - sleep in. Getting up at 6am to go to a zoo with rides isn't my idea of fun. Most people probably make it out to the park at 10 or 11am & when the park closes 5 or 6 hours later a lot of the walking cuts out attraction time. When the park closes, my guess is if you asked every guest walking out if they would spend $50 for a "full day" in the park I think it's a safe bet that most would say no. Next trip I'm probably not going top even waste hopping time to take a bus over to AK.


And IMO I'd take a day at DCA over DAK any day of the week.

[airlarry!]

If you can visit a park and reasonably see most of its attractions, with some eats and treats thrown in in six to eight hours....then Monsieur DK, you have just defined to a reasonable certainty The Half Day Park.

Eight hours may be a full day at the home office...but it is just barely over a half-day in my book.

Take the MK...How many people can 'reasonably see most of its attractions, with some eats and treats thrown in, in six to eight hours?"

None.

I would bet you a pound of boudin that most people can reasonably 'do' the AK in six to eight hours. Show of hands here...who thinks six to eight hours of touring is a full day...maybe this goes back to the days when I remember the MK opening at 7 and closing at midnight or beyond.

[PKS44]

Looking at DK's explanation about how long it takes do stuff is damning the AK park all by itself...In order to fill the "whole" day you have to include time to get to the rides and waiting for them...the attractions are so few and so spread out---no wonder so many find it so unsatisfying no matter how much time it takes to "do" the park.

Sure the other parks have lines- but none have the one land/one attraction feel of so much of old "half-day" AK.

Paul

:cool:

[disneychrista]

Originally posted by airlarry!
If you can visit a park and reasonably see most of its attractions, with some eats and treats thrown in in six to eight hours....then Monsieur DK, you have just defined to a reasonable certainty The Half Day Park.
I personally can not see how anyone can see most of AK attractions, eat lunch, and at least one snack/treat, and don't forget the potty breaks that most families have to have a couple times each day, in 6 to 8 hours.

As others have said it is all on what you want to see. If you only want to hit the "main" attractions then yes, 6 - 8 hours will cover it. But if you are going to hit the main attractions and take time to see the animals, go on the trails, do any character meet and greats etc. then it is going to take twice that, at least. We spent two 6 - 8 hour days at AK in early December and still did not get everything in the park done.

[kimmar067]

If you had a choice to pay $50, and $50 only, for a park per day (in other words, no more multi-day passes!!) who would purchase a ticket for AK?? (sounds like a poll to me;) !) I'd almost bet that there would be few (if any ~ probably lst timers) eager to purchase a ticket to AK......

[gbxxxi]

Good question, kimmar....

I am sure that you are correct that most people on this board would not purchase a separate ticket to AK, but I would definitely be one who would buy an AK ticket. And - I am not a first-timer to Disney.....

[kimmar067]

...will get us nowhere, but I'd like to bring home another point regarding the "$50/day ticket" issue. Most guests of WDW probably purchase a multi-day pass to visit the parks, and they probably visit AK because of that reason. If you have unlimited access to the parks, most people would probably visit AK for that "half-day visit" and still have plenty of time to squeeze in the rest of another park that they've missed on a previous visit (ie: perhaps going to MGM to catch Fantasmic) I doubt that it would be the other way around....JMHO

[DisneyKidds]

Does this come across as a bit uppity for a first post from a lurker? I apologize in advance if it does, certainly didn't mean to.
Nope, not at all ;). That would be two people that have come out of lurk mode for this thread. I can't think of any greater measure of success for a thread :). Welcome aboard.
When I said I thought they were flawed, I didn't mean that mine would be right, just that nobody can be sure. So, defy this Kidds!
Aw, come on Mr. Snacky, you can play along better than that ;). By the way, that defy was all in good fun :crazy:. That's ok if you don't want to attack my logic, as I am sure you thought about it and came to the truely logical conclusion that it is not nearly as flawed as you originally thought it was :p.
Now!! How about answering the question!
Hey, who's thread is this :confused:. What was the question? :crazy:. Two posts from Baron on one thread. That is fairly rare lately. Another measure of success (in my book at least). :cool:
If you can visit a park and reasonably see most of its attractions, with some eats and treats thrown in in six to eight hours....then Monsieur DK, you have just defined to a reasonable certainty The Half Day Park.
Your Airness, all I attempted to illustrate was that you need more than 8 hours after you pass thru the AK gates to see the headline attractions. Throw in a couple of meals, along with all the other minor sights to see, and you are easily up to 12+ hours. I did not say you could do what you describe above. In fact, we probably spend about 12 hours in the AK per trip (over the course of 2 days) and we don't see everything.
If you had a choice to pay $50, and $50 only, for a park per day (in other words, no more multi-day passes!!) who would purchase a ticket for AK??
After we plunked down our $50 for the MK, AK would be next in line. But that is because we are a...........
family, traveling with kids, for which it is a full day park..
I do realize that "half day park' is just a euphamism for 'less of a park than the MK/Epcot'. So what, big deal. It is still chock full of a full days worth of activity. Therefore, it can be, and for many is, a full day park. For others it isn't. That is one of the best things about WDW. Take from it what you want, and have your own fun.

Now about those other problems................................

[disneychrista]

Originally posted by kimmar067
If you had a choice to pay $50, and $50 only, for a park per day (in other words, no more multi-day passes!!) who would purchase a ticket for AK??
If there were no more multi-park passes, we would be still go to AK. During a 5 day trip, we would probably go to AK once. a 10 day trip twice.

[SnackyStacky]

By the way, that defy was all in good fun

I know. Did you miss the smooth face?

So, defy this Kidds! :smooth:


ANYWAY...

That's ok if you don't want to attack my logic, as I am sure you thought about it and came to the truely logical conclusion that it is not nearly as flawed as you originally thought it was

I know that that was also in good fun, but c'mon. You're clamoring for neutrality in evaluating the park, but here you're using figures that YOUR family uses. I'll get into this a little more in depth, but you have a family? I'm assuming? With kids? Peachy! Good for you! But THAT'S why your numbers are flawed. Little legs take a lot longer to cover the same ground as my 6'1" frame. Little bladders need to empty FAR more frequently than mine does. All of these things skew your numbers. You'd have to take a sample of guests from ALL age ranges, and take an average of the walking times.

I think the first thing that needs to happen here is to have the title of the thread changed. All it currently serves to do is to allow personal "agendas" (for lack of a better word) into the debate. As far as I'm concerned, it should read "Is Animal Kingdom less than the other parks?", because people can insist that it IS a full day park every bit as much as I can insist that it isn't.

And it IS less. Look at the attraction count. And I can hear the "but the detail is amazing" until people are blue in the face, but it doesn't phase me. The other parks are immensely full of detail too. Not the same type of detail as Animal Kingdom, but detail nonetheless.

Not everybody has a family. I'm not saying that Disney needs to cater to a specific demographic at ALL, I'm just saying that because you DO have kids, and it takes you longer to get from one place the next, you WILL have a different perception than I do, or than a retired couple enjoying it without kids! Because they have such a diverse audience, they need more choices for the tons of different tastes, likes, and dislikes that walk through the turnstiles everyday.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds

Hey, who's thread is this :confused:. What was the question? :crazy:. Two posts from Baron on one thread. That is fairly rare lately. Another measure of success (in my book at least). :cool:



And this makes three!! To another non-response-response!! And tiss truly your thread, but I didn't bring it up - YOU DID!!! All I want is clarification! So give with some answers!! ($coop alert - double quotes coming ;) )

I agree that AK has problems. Care to delineate those problems from your perspective?

And…
However, I don't think adding another 10 attractions is going to solve those problems, do you?Why wouldn’t “adding another 10 attractions” (assuming of course they were “Disney” attractions) help?

So how about it Mr. Kidds? Get off your slanted personal perspective on this issue and dive into it the way SS wants you to. And my exploration of your comments is a perfect starting point!

[airlarry!]

I think M. Snacky Stacky has a great point. I was playing this thread by M. DK's rules...that he took for granted his family needs at least eight hours to 'do' the park. As an aside, but I think it is relevant, I think of the parks in days per the old Sehlinger Command Touring method. Not that I use the method, I'm only using it for reference. Both Epcot and the MK warrant two day plans. AK does not. Commandos can do AK in much less then 8.

How 'bout this analysis...

If you were to hit the AK commando-style, you could reasonably hit all but one or two of the attractions before 4:00...and still have time to spend a half-day somewhere else.

Or if you were take a nice easy eight or nine hours touring just about everything in AK, you should still have time to visit another park. Because the park closes so early anyway.

This reminds me of when MGM opened. And I'm wondering if anyone else is like this...it is rare that my family can stay at one park from 7:30 until midnight. We do it differently....we either get there before 8:00 (if allowable) and tour until 11:00 or 2:00 (depends on how we feel), rest up at the hotel with an eat and a swim, and then head back to a different park (sometimes the same but usually a different park).

It's like ice cream. It's great by the scoop, but trying eating all 31 flavors in one session. AK is always the park that we stay until 2 or 3 and then rest up for a night visit to the MK or dinner at Epcot.

[King Triton]

Yep, you can do Epcot today in 2 hours. just kidding:tongue:

I do think AK needs a beastly kingdom addition. Some cool roller coaster rides and at least another dark ride. AK does close at dusk - adding some new e ticket rides could extend the hours till late evening. Just my thougths.

[abitjaded]

Just what happens with us, two adults and two kids, 6 and 9. We go to AK a couple times each trip, off-season, so no lines, we arrive at opening and leave at closing.

We still never manage to do the whole park, we cannot see all the shows. We ride Dino a couple times and Kali a couple times and always do Safari at least twice, and yes we even can ride it 3-4 times in one day. We have not managed to catch the bird show in the last three trips, nor can we ever seem to ride the train and hit Conservation Station (I love the Rain Forest sound thing). We could easily stay in the park a couple more hours, if the shows had more times available, I miss dinner at Flame Tree or Tuskers, with an end of the day glass of wine. We can also spend hours in the Asia and Africa trails, and I have never had enough time to watch the birds near the entrance, and have never managed to catch Devine. Yes, the experience reminds me of MGM in the early years as airlarry! says (and sadly still reminds me of MGM now, I'd rather skip MGM than AK).

Carla

[sorcerermikey]

The main reason I've been a lurker is because usually the only thing I have to say is: ditto baron. But now I've bothered to register and broken the silence so.... ditto my first post and ditto baron. Answer the questions: what ARE AKs problems and why wouldn't 10 new attractions solve the issue?

[Jeff in BigD]

I think the problem is that AK doesn't really have that many quality attractions. Kali is not aethetically pleasing & the message is to vague to cancel out the point. The Safari ride was neat & all, but I'm struggling to think of a single attraction that really wowed or impressed me though.

I think the problem isn't only quantity, but quality as well.

[Pig Pen]

DH and I spent 9 days in WDW during Sept 2002. We are in our early 40s and are empty nesters. On this, our 3rd visit to Animal Kingdom, we only stayed 6 hours.

Why only 6 hours? These are the attractions we visited:

Safari - great re-creation of Africa. I was disappointed that the bridge collapsing effect was not operating. I really like the poaching scenario...although after this many years, it could be re-scripted.

Dinosaur - one of our all-time favorites. If you listen to the storyline and follow it throughout the ride, you get a lot more out of the ride.

Primeval Whirl - First and last time. We got sick!

Tough to be a Bug - another favorite.

Festival of the Lion King - Not to be missed

Flights of Wonder - our first time seeing this show! We never had time for it before. We enjoyed it.

The following explains our thoughts on AK attractions that we bypassed. I am not putting the park down in any way.... this simply explains why we only stayed 6 hours.

We don't do Kali anymore. Too short for the amount of soaking you get.

We took the train ride to Conservation Station twice before and didn't find it worth the one hour (more or less) that it takes to get there, tour around, and get back. I'm sure it's interesting for some, but not us.

The walking tours - again, been there, done that. I can see a monkey picking fleas at any zoo. These paths are narrow and crowded, even during the slow times we visit.

Boneyard, Dinoland, etc., - DH and I would look pretty silly digging for fossils in the Boneyard, don't you think? Dinoland reminds me of a midway at a traveling carnival. Kids definitely enjoy this and I am not putting it down in any way.

Tarzan Rocks - saw it before, didn't want to see it again.

parade - we've never seen this because it has rained every afternoon we have ever been at AK.

What are the problems with the park?

Layout. I am very good with maps/directions, but I always get turned around in AK.

Chintzy rides - expand Kali - make me WANT to get soaked!!!! Update Safari, Tough to be a Bug, Tarzan Rocks. Develop some big rides along the line of POC and HM - inject a little Disney magic please?

Hello, how about a sit-down restaurant (besides Rainforest)?

Stay open later and offer a big evening entertainment event/show similar to Fantasmic. The excuse for no fireworks was it would be "disturbing to the animals". Well, the park is huge. Couldn't something be done on the Asia side of the park?

I love WDW and really want to see AK live up to the Disney potential. I'm not so imaginative (which is probably why WDW is so awe-inspiring to me) to make any specific suggestions.

[d-r]

Since 1998, I've been to DAK 10-12 times, I'm not sure exactly. We have never, ever stayed for more than 1/2 day.

If you get there about noon, pretty soon most people will start leaving.

Go to kilmanjaro safari, get a fast pass and do the walk while your fast pass comes up. Do the same for Kali and for dinosaur. Ride the train to conservation station. Go to Lion King and Tarzan (personally, I couldn't stand to go see both of these on the same trip and we usually skip something). How in the world can that take a whole day. I'm thinking five or six hours. Most times, dinosaur, dinorama, tough to be a bug are walk on if you go in the afternoon. Gosh, it isn't even open a whole day, 8 hours is 1/2 for that matter. I guess if you did every single thing you could find a way to spend 8 hours there, but it would be pushing it for me.

And I LIKE the AK, and feel satisfied that I get enough out of it to make the trip over there.

[SnackyStacky]

Pig Pen made exactly the point that I was trying to make. She doesn't like everything. She listed 26% of the attractions as attractions that she did. Doing 26% of the attractions at Magic Kingdom would mean she'd done 14 attractions vs. the 6 at Animal Kingdom. See below for my math:


Here's exactly what Disney lists as it's attractions for Animal Kingdom:

The Oasis Exhibit
Festival of the Lion King
Pocahontas and Her Forest Friends
Character Greetings
The Tree of Life
It's Tough To Be A Bug
Discover the Stories Behing the Magic
Discovery Island Trails
Kilimanjaro Safaris
Pangani Forest Exploration Trail
Wildlife Express Train
Habitat Habitat
Conservation Station
Affection Section
Flights of Wonder
Kali River Rapids
Maharajah Jungle Trek
The Boneyard
Tarzan Rocks
Midway Games
Triceratop Spin
Dino-Sue
Dinosaur

These ALL come directly from Disney's guidemap for the Animal Kingdom. That's 23 that they list. I have real problems with what they're listing as attractions, but I figured it out both with and without those questionables, and it doesn't affect the percentages any.

So, 6 attractions out of 23 is 26%.

Continuing, here's the Magic Kingdom's attraction listing:

Walt Disney World Railroad
City Hall
Main Street Vehicles
Town Square Exposition
Discover the Stories Behind the Magic
Guest Information Board
Swiss Family Treehouse
Shrunken ned's Junior Jungle Boats
The Magic Carpets of Aladdin
The Enchanted Tiki Room (UNM)
Jungle Cruise
Pirates of the Caribbean
Character Greetings
Walt Disney World Railroad
Splash Mountain
Big Thunder Mountain
Tom Sawyer Island
Country Bear Jamboree
Frontierland Shootin' Arcade
The Diamond Horseshoe Saloon Revue
The Hall of Presidents
Liberty Square Riverboat
The Haunted Mansion
It's A Small World
Peter Pan's Flight
Legend of the Lion King
Cinderella's Surprise Celebration
Cinderella's Golden Carousel
Ariel's Grotto
Fantasyland Character Festival
Dumbo The Flying Elephant
Snow White's Scary Adventures
Fairytale Garden
The Many Adventures of Winnie The Pooh
Mad Tea Party
Mickey's Country House
Toontown Hall of Fame Tent
Judge's Tent
Minnie's Country House
Walt Disney World Railroad
Donald's Boat
The Barnstormer
Tomorrowland Indy Speedway
Tomorrowland Arcade
Space Mountain
Astro Orbiter
Tomorrowland Transit Authority
Carousel of Progress
Galaxy Palace Theatre
Buzzlightyear's Space Ranger Spin
The Timekeeper
Alien Encounter

That's 53 attractions. Once again, I have problems with what they're listing as attractions, but...oh, well....just read what I wrote about the Animal Kingdom attraction count!

26% of 53 is 14.

But you don't even need those percentages. Look at those numbers. 23 vs. 53. That's less than half!!!!! Uh-oh.....there's that word again....half.....

I believe it was raidermatt (it was!) who said:

2- Experiencing everything at AK still takes less time than experiencing everything at the other three parks. So whatever we consider MK to be, 2 day, 3 day, whatever, its clear that AK falls furthest away from that mark.

That got me to thinking: can I mathematically PROVE that the Animal Kingdom is a half day park?

Suppose it takes one hour per attraction (working off of Pig Pen's 6 hours in the park completing 6 attractions...which would allow for bathroom breaks, stopping to enjoy detail....whatever) It would take 23 hours to complete Animal Kingdom. It would take 53 hours to complete the Magic Kingdom. Let's convert that to days.

Animal Kingdom: .9583 of a day (that's not even a whole day)
Magic Kingdom: 2.2083 days

Here's the math:

23 hours to do the attractions ÷ 24 hours in a day = .9583
53 hours to do the attractions ÷ 24 hours in a day = 2.2083

SO, let's reduce those 24 hour days to operating days!

Because the Magic Kingdom is open longer than Animal Kingdom, we have to pretend that the Magic Kingdom is only open the same 8 hours that the Animal Kingdom is open. (8 hours in the off season...it would work if we used peak season hours as well)

It would take 2 days and 7 hours of a 3rd to do every attraction at the Animal Kingdom. (again, assuming the park is open for 8 hours, and 8 hours only)

It would take 6 days and 5 hours of a 7th to do everything at the Magic Kingdom. (again, assuming the park is open for 8 hours, and 8 hours only)

The math:

23 hours to do the attractions ÷ 8 operating hours = 2.875 days
.875 of an 8 hour day is 7 hours (.875 X 8 = 7)

53 hours to do the attractions ÷ 8 operating hours = 6.625 days
.625 of an 8 hour day is 5 hours (.625 X 8 = 5)

SO, going from there, assuming we can cram EVERYTHING in the Magic Kingdom into an 8 hour day:

6.625 days ÷ 6.625 = 1 operating day

2.875 days ÷ 6.625 = .434 of an operating day (read as 43% of an operating day)


Oh wait....I think I just mathematically proved that the Animal Kingdom park really is LESS than a half day park! :jester:

My god. I have WAAAAAAAAY too much time on my hands. Somebody stop me.

Please.

[DisneyKidds]

Wow Snacky, I'm not even going to try and follow the "math" in that last post ;). It is amazing though, that you and I can use the same post as ammunition in our arsenal :crazy:. I, too, would look to Pig Pen's post as clear evidence that AK is most certainly NOT a half day park. Get all that crazy math (is that the new math the kids are always talking about :confused: ) out of your head and go back and read the post with a clear mind.

Now, let's define "half day", the literal "half day" that I am too hung up on, and maybe well move on to some material that will appease that pesky Baron. The average Disney park is open 11 hours. How did I figure that, you ask? Well, let's say on the average that AK is open 9 - 6 (9 hours), MGM 9 - 8 (11 hours), Epcot 9 - 9 (12 hours), and MK 9 - 9 (12 hours). That is an average of 11 hours. Half of 11 is 5.5. For a park to be a "half day" park you would have to be able to see all of what the park has to offer in 5.5 hours. The Pen's post clearly shows that a sampling of those who don't feel the need to see even a majority of what the AK offers spend more than a half day in the park. Secondly, the mighty Pen's post serves to show that I underestimated the times in my analysis, as according to my times they would have been able to do the six attractions mentioned in just over 3 hours. You see, AK takes more time than people realize - and the Pen is mightier than the sword :smooth:.

Let me dispense with the giving o' the business and then on to some answers................
Little legs take a lot longer to cover the same ground as my 6'1" frame. Little bladders need to empty FAR more frequently than mine does. All of these things skew your numbers.
Nice try, but no. First off, there is not much walking time factored into my numbers. Second, no little legs to factor in. Even with the kiddies, we move around by stroller. Perhaps you can move a little faster than my stroller, but I defy you to make it from Lion King to Tarzan in much less than 5 minutes, even if you have Paul Bunyan strides. I didn't figure bathroom breaks. Fact is, there is very little skewing my numbers, and I once again refer to the Pen.
And this makes three!!
Ah, Baron. I bet I could get a half dozen posts out of you by virtue of my non answers, but it isn't too late so maybe I'll give you something this go around ;). But not just yet..........
If you were to hit the AK commando-style, you could reasonably hit all but one or two of the attractions before 4:00...and still have time to spend a half-day somewhere else.
I'd like to see that plan. We are seasoned vets who know how to move around a park. We don't waste time, and I can assure you that "all but one or two before four" is, quite frankly, impossible.
How in the world can that take a whole day. I'm thinking five or six hours.
d-r, do you realize that you only listed 7 attractions - and think that it would take 5 or 6 hours? Well, there is your half day, and as the Stacky one would say, you only hit 30% of the park. See a theme here folks? First off, AK - the whole of it - takes a lot longer than anyone realizes. Problem is, not enough people want to see the whole of the AK.

So, where does that leave us? Well, the AK is clearly not a half day park. Some people might only want to spend a half day there, and that is a problem, but that does not make it a half day park. You can't see much more than 30% of what it offers in half of the average daily operating hours for a Disney park. Case closed.

So what is wrong with the AK is....................................

[DisneyKidds]

Sorry, had to end that last post. You know - hoping someone was reading along and would get miffed that I didn't answer any questions ;).

So, what is wrong with the AK? Well, I really have to give that more thought. As I mentioned a few times, there is a problem in that, while the AK offers entertainment that could keep you busy for more than a day, many people just don't want to see it. I really don't know why that is, because there is a lot of good in much of what is offered. I'll explore that more, but this is a good opening to answer a burning question.

That question is, why won't 10 new attractions fix the AK problems? If you ask me, even with 10 new attractions, if people continue to tour the Ak the way they currently do, those 10 attractions might add only a handful that those people want to see. So it adds a couple of hours to the time they spend there, but that isn't going to solve the problem of why people don't see fit to experience the whole of the AK.
Because they have such a diverse audience, they need more choices for the tons of different tastes, likes, and dislikes that walk through the turnstiles everyday.
Snacky has hit on a key here I guess. I also know your answer to the problem, that the park should offer more. You didn't need to go on about attraction counts for me to agree that AK is less of a park than MK. Yeah, it has less attractions. So, if quantity is your measure, AK is less of a park. But I don't know that I like the answer to solving this problem of the diverse audience, and that is building more parks like the MK. The MK has no less than 53 attractions. However, that spans not just different lands, but lands that cover half a dozen different genres. AK is ONE genre. Do you really think that they could get 53+ attractions into the AK? Not with the concept, which was to have a park that was dedicated and focused on rides, shows and attractions based on a single genre - animals. I don't know that I want Disney building more Magic Kingdoms with a different theme, do you?

Is it that the AK theme doesn't appeal to people? Is it that people just don't care for the attractions - even the quality ones? Is it that people don't give the AK a chance, and the time it deserves? And if they don't, why? I will ponder this some more, but now that we have moved past the "half day" issue, I welcome your thoughts on the problems - the ones I mention, and the others you think the park has.

There you go Baron, and your new dittoing friend, and others - your turn to stop demanding and step up to the plate.

Batter up.................:smooth:.

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Problem is, not enough people want to see the whole of the AK.

Exactly- which is why it IS a half-day park. Most people see enough in half a day and are ready to leave, unsatisfied....Every year, more people choose to not see it at all as its attendance drops EVERY year from the year before....Apparently you have no response to my analysis that the park was designed to be a lesser park...that your very own numbers DEMAND that much of the "whole" day be spent just walking from one side of this underdeveloped, sprawling place to the other in search of its paltry offerings....it packs less and less into more space making it seem half-full or or half-empty depending on how you look at it...but "half" nonetheless...Case closed???? Not in your favor, Mr Kidds!!!:cool:

Paul

[DisneyKidds]

Exactly- which is why it IS a half-day park. Most people see enough in half a day and are ready to leave, unsatisfied....
Exactly NOT. This only makes it a half day park for those who choose to make it so. It is a very individual thing. AK is a full day park that people only choose to see half of. Why don't you talk about why that is, rather than just hurling the half day insult? Half day park for them, but that is far different from half day park in general.
Every year, more people choose to not see it at all as its attendance drops EVERY year from the year before....
Been a while since I saw any attendance analysis, but I don't think the numbers I recall bear that out. Maybe that happy and sure to be gloating Raiders fan will help us out here.
Apparently you have no response to my analysis that the park was designed to be a lesser park...
In case you missed it, I agree on quantity that it is less of a park, but that is for reasons more than just cheap, I believe. No way the AK could support 53+attractions given the limited theme.
that your very own numbers DEMAND that much of the "whole" day be spent just walking
I have very little time factored in for walking. If I did an analysis on the MK I'd have to allow for time to get from Splash to Space - you have to. And you are going to to do better than this same old, same old :(.
Not in your favor, Mr Kidds!!!
I'll wait until you stop saying the same thing over, and over, and over.............to determine what is or is not in my favor :smooth:. Show me what your have, besides a desire to throw insults at a park without attempting to understand the park and it's problems. Come on, show me what you've got :p .

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Been a while since I saw any attendance analysis, but I don't think the numbers I recall bear that out.

and if you recall incorrectly???? then what? Is it like that old Monty Python sketch "Stake your Claim" where the guy claims to have written all of Shakespeare's plays until he is asked how he could have written plays performed before he was born--so he just says "well, this is where my claim falls to the ground..."

here your argument has no footing whatsoever. The park attendence at AK has fallen every year since it opened. Last year it was down 6% from the year before. My comments are not an insult to the park, just a description of it's failures.


And as for walking time from Space to Spash?? The difference there is you walk past about 20 attractions along the way that you can stop and enjoy..at AK on some of the longest treks from one side to the other you go past what 2? 3?

Stating the same old same old over and over?? Sounds more like this endless refrain -tallying up the times to show how long it takes YOU to tour AK.

I do not insult the park- it is an insult to the Disney theme park family and the fans of the true "full-day" parks that Imagineers develop and the the public are willing to visit-(See Tokyo) The whole MickeyMinnie Land which consists of two shows and some character meet/greet pagodas is an insult to everyone to call that a "land." You doubt AK's theme could have support more-- you ignore its history...or maybe you just don't know it which might explain your difficulty understanding the parks problems --- it was SUPPOSED to have more but budget limitations- not theme limits have kept them from including Beastly Kingdom. That was a part of the original design of the park and now is but a faint hope for its future. Apparently Disney has had lots of things already developed that they are not willing to put forth because the park is not paying off...this is the usual failure of vision and confidence in the need for investment so typical of this current management which you seem to ignore---how about that unicorn ride, something with dragons, Australia (soarin' anyone?) South American Nile river ride? how about a river otter slide attraction or water based attraction? Move the sea animals from the Living Seas to AK-and create a new spectacular attraction or attractions devoted to this whole section of the animal kingdom currently ignored (and don't forget to create something new and interesting for Epcot.) I am not a paid Imagineer so it is not my role to create new attractions...but the problem is not lack of ideas in theme...it is lack of committment to creating a whole day experience like the other parks-they design them less and then hope to reap the profits early and only build onto them later...it does not work...the park does not work--they can cut more from it. more hours, more attractions (remember it had a boat ride at one time???)--or they can invest and add something -because the Dino additions won't do it...despite the possible attendence "spike" they might claim as I outlined earlier as a statistical game...

Sorry- you obviously have a soft spot for AK--maybe you should just enjoy it's uncrowded paths and copious attractions as you see it ..But instead you parrot (animal reference intended) the current Disney management approach--telling the majority of the theme park going public that we are wrong and you are right. Yeah, sure. That's a winning strategy.

Paul

[ASFCurly]

arguing whether or not AK is a half day park or not isn't going to help, some people think it is, and some people think it takes a whole day, some even more, but that is the same with all the parks, there might be more people that think that AK is a half day park than think MK or Epcot are a half day park, but I bet there are still quite a few that do think one or both of them are a half day, unless every single person that goes into the park only stays a half day, which doesn't happen, you can't call it a half day park in general, you can call it a half day park for you, while I am looking forward to it my next trip, I was not that interested in Epcot on my last trip, and my sister and I called it a half day park, I bet people would throw a fit though if we tried to call it a half day park in general. You guys would day the same things that the people are saying in defense of AK, there are plenty of rides available. But if all you were interested in was Test Track and Space Ship Earth, then it isn't a full day for you, it is the same thing.

[DisneyKidds]

and if you recall incorrectly????
Then mea culpa.
The park attendence at AK has fallen every year since it opened. Last year it was down 6% from the year before.
Show me some reilable numbers..................and if you quote numbers incorrectly???? then what? Is it like that old Monty Python sketch "Stake your Claim" where the guy claims to have written all of Shakespeare's plays until he is asked how he could have written plays performed before he was born--so he just says "well, this is where my claim falls to the ground...".
Stating the same old same old over and over?? Sounds more like this endless refrain -tallying up the times to show how long it takes YOU to tour AK.
Feel free to move past the first concept any time you like, and on to discussing the real causes for the problems. And if you want to continue on this point - a rather simple one that AK physically contains enough entertainment to keep a guest busy for a day plus - you can shed some light on why you think people choose not to avail themselves of it. Furthermore, my point isn't about how long it takes me to tour the park, it is about the amount of entertainment that is provided in the park. Step back and stop looking at what you like to do in the AK and assess how long you think it would take you to see most of what is offered. Then tell us why you choose not to see it. Is that why many guests choose not to see the attractions? Really talk about the root causes for the problems. One of which is not that.............
it was SUPPOSED to have more but budget limitations- not theme limits have kept them from including Beastly Kingdom.
Really, do you think one additional area (land) with a couple of rides, a show and a few other attractions would have changed the landscape of the AK that significantly? That is such a common refrain from those who don't care for the AK, but I just don't see it. I believe that AK's problems run deeper than that, but I really don't know why. If AK had Beastly Kingdom next year I'm sure it might extend your time in the AK by a marginal amount. You'd ride whatever E ticket was provided and see a couple other things, and extend your 4 hour AK visit to maybe 6. But is Beastly Kingdom going to make you, or others, suddenly want to experience all the things in the AK that you didn't choose to see before? Stop looking for the obvious answer and the easy way out.

Rediculous exaggeration alert, rediculous exaggeration alert, rediculously slanted exaggeration alert...........................
at AK on some of the longest treks from one side to the other you go past what 2? 3? (attractions)
Get real :rolleyes:. Ok, maybe it is only 2 or 3 attractions that you want to do but let's not throw out baseless, exaggerated insults.
My comments are not an insult to the park, just a description of it's failures.
Stating that AK has attendance problems, stating that it has less attractions than another park, stating that you think there is a lack of quality in some of the attractions, etc, etc. would be your description of what you believe the parks failures to be. Talk some more about those. However, while these things might make it a half day park for you, calling the AK a half day park in general is an insult, IMHO.
but the problem is not lack of ideas in theme...it is lack of committment to creating a whole day experience like the other parks
Is the answer that all parks have to be created like the MK or Epcot? Maybe it is, I really don't know. However, I like to see Disney take some chances and do new things. I don't think frugality was the main reason why AK was made the way it was. Sure, to save they cut out Beastly Kingdom, but I really don't see that that would have helped to prevent the problems that AK has. Unfortunately the public doesn't always embrace new or different ideas.
The whole MickeyMinnie Land which consists of two shows and some character meet/greet pagodas is an insult to everyone to call that a "land."
Maybe this is part of the problem, that Disney conditioned it's guests to look at things in a certain way. Camp MinnieMickey is not a "land". I don't believe Disney calls it a "land". However, you (and others) view it from that perspective and get insulted that is isn't as comprehensive as Adventureland in the MK. Again, does everything have to be like the MK?
Sorry- you obviously have a soft spot for AK
It has nothing to do with soft spots. I simply take my family to the Disney parks and we do what everyone in the family enjoys. We choose to avail ourselves of most of what each of the parks has to offer our group, and the AK simply offers a days + worth of entertainment. For others it doesn't - different strokes I guess.
telling the majority of the theme park going public that we are wrong and you are right.
Choose to read things however you like, but this is not what I am doing. Did you miss all that talk I have in my last few posts about problems at the AK? I originally had one simple point that still stands. If you look at all of the entertainment that is offered in the AK, there is a full days + worth of things to do. As such, AK is not a "half day" park, or a park that has no more attractions than could fill a half day - that is clear. No one is wrong, and I didn't say they were, about the fact that people don't want to see much of what is offered. So let's talk more about that now.

Gee, I went back 5 pages, and this is only the 4th thread with more than 70 posts. We can "argue" all we want about the AK (and we will :crazy: ), but I know you love this stuff :cool:. Thanks for the banter.................................and keep it coming.

[SnackyStacky]

Wow Snacky, I'm not even going to try and follow the "math" in that last post

Actually, the math was really simple. Just a few multiplications and divisions. Didn't you ever learn that OF always means to multiply? (as in one half OF a day...:p )

And if you want to continue on this point - a rather simple one that AK physically contains enough entertainment to keep a guest busy for a day plus

Hasn't that been conceded to? If it hasn't, here we go:

Animal Kingdom can take a whole day if you do each and every attraction offered.

There. I thought I said it before, but there it is.

Can we move on now as to WHY the feeling exists that it is a half day park despite the fact that there is enough to occupy an entire day?!?!

[DisneyKidds]

Can we move on now as to WHY the feeling exists that it is a half day park despite the fact that there is enough to occupy an entire day?!?!
Go back and look at my last few posts. That's what I've been TRYING to do. While you may have conceded that other point, not everyone has ;).

As for that WHY, what were your thoughts again?

Try this, oh Snacky one. I think a prime case you are making is sheer attraction count. MK = 53, Ak = 26, AK = less than MK. Fair enough - remember, I agree.

Now look at Epcot. If we add up the Epcot attractions you come to something like 35. In that I am counting not only the actual attraction for WS countries that have one, but the countries themselves - for people to walk around and enjoy the architechture, atmosphere, and what not. That would be akin to people actually taking the time to appreciate the plantings, architecture and atmosphere of the AK, something not included in your AK 26. Excluding the countries in Epcot you have an attraction count of roughly 25. If I apply the same time anaylsis to Epcot as I did to AK (using the same assumptions about relatively low crowds and no long lines), I'd estimate that you could do the 25 or so attractions in Epcot in about 9 or 10 hours (vs AK 8 or 9). Take time to explore each country and you'd add another 3 hours or so - but that would mean you'd have to add time to do that in AK. All in all, Epcot doesn't have that many more attractions than AK, yet Epcot is widely considered to be a 2 day park while AK is widely considered to be a half day park. Why is that? You see, I don't think the answer lies in the mere number of attractions and their duration. There is something more at work in when it comes to the AK problems.

[PKS44]

The fullness quotient of a park is not determined by adding up all of its attractions and seeing how long it takes to do them all. It is determined by whether it offers enough for most guests to fell they got their full day's admission's worth...I will be happy to post a poll on this (it probably should be on the Theme Parks board not here) as to whether a single day ticket at AK is worth the same as the price for the other parks---we can do it for each of the parks to be more scientific about it.

Here is my take on the failures of the park- there is not much there..they take less and spread it out over a larger area- this makes it seem to be even less...much of what is there is no better than many zoos which charge a fraction of the price (or no charge as is the case at our local zoo)- the non-zoo attractions (basically the rides and some of the shows) are not enough to distinguish the park. The NON ZOO/NOn SHOW entertainment from your list:

Safari- a top notch popular attraction- not different enough from the zoo like things at a fraction of the cost.

Kali River Rapids (the ride is too short and if you wait in line for it you really feel you went a long way for very little (also note this ride wasn't even there when they dared to pen the park)

Tough to be a Bug-good

Triceratops Spin lame
Primevil WhirlDinosaur-they cut the budget in developing both and it comes across as cheap- not worth $50/day
Boneyard- a sand box playground-my kids could probably spend a half day in this alone- but I would hardly be satisfied having spent the $$ to do so
couple character greetings- I can do this at Chukie Cheese's too-not worth $50/day
Walk around Tree of Life-very pretty sculpture but people do not pay $50 to look at Cinderella's castle and it's lovely mosaics.

SO can you spend more than half a day doing the park?- YES

The reason people don't want to is that as they go around they find they are not EXPERIENCING what they paid for- a unique enough experience to part with their $50...they feel like they are in a zoo. with a few spread out and pared down attractions. And my suggestions for attractions and letting Imagineers do their job without the accountants ruining it would go a long way towards solving that problem.

Paul

[space42]

Not quite. EPCOT Center from 1983-Mid 90's would have been a 2 to 3 day park. Since they seem to be taking out the long format attractions in favor of short attention span attractions (and closed attractions / attractions that are in desperate need of updating) , it is much less of a park now than it was 10 years ago IMHO.

Also.. Beastly Kingom was not the only thing cut from AK's budget. From what I understand AK was opened with about 10-15 attractions less than it would have if it had been built using the original plans. An entire new land plus 2-3 more attractions in each of the other lands would be a big step in the right direction for AK.

[SnackyStacky]

Go back and look at my last few posts.

Okay...

However, while these things might make it a half day park for you, calling the AK a half day park in general is an insult, IMHO

If you look at all of the entertainment that is offered in the AK, there is a full days + worth of things to do. As such, AK is not a "half day" park, or a park that has no more attractions than could fill a half day - that is clear.

There it is my friend.

You still seem to be stuck on the half day issue.

Let me reiterate what YOU said:

If you look at all of the entertainment that is offered in the AK, there is a full days + worth of things to do.

You keep saying that over and over. You want to know WHY I believe Animal Kingdom is viewed as half day park by some?

Because let's take a look at that attraction count again. Let's count the rides. Getting back to basics, a ride is where they put in some sort of vehicle and you move.

There are:

Kilimanjaro Safaris
Dinosaur
Primeval Whirl
Triceratop Spin
Kali River Rapids

That's 5.

When people go to a theme park, they expect rides. If Disney wants to educate us, let them! But people also want rides.

The majority of what Animal Kingdom offers are educational displays like they have at a museum. And some of those things are interesting, but people don't pay $50 a day to get into a museum! Or a zoo, for that matter.

THAT'S why I think they fall short. And even if you count the actual shows, you'd have Tough To Be A Bug, Lion King, and Pocahontas and Flights of Wonder. That's only 4 more, for a total of 9. Nine true to heart Disney attractions. Not exhibits, but attractions.

Could that be where it's falling short?

[AKemel]

We just came back from WDW. It was our twentieth or so time there at the AK.

My point is that when we went to MK we did 1 ride (about 5 min of entertainment) because of the lines. At AK we did about 4 shows/attractions (about 2 hours of entertainment).

To me it is a very simple decision which one is a better value.

[DisneyKidds]

You keep saying that over and over.
Yes, but the responses you are quoting are not aimed at you ;). Now let me quote myself (in context)..........
Feel free to move past the first concept any time you like, and on to discussing the real causes for the problems. And if you want to ................. you can shed some light on why you think people choose not to avail themselves of it.
Really talk about the root causes for the problems.
No one is wrong, and I didn't say they were, about the fact that people don't want to see much of what is offered. So let's talk more about that now.
Is it that the AK theme doesn't appeal to people? Is it that people just don't care for the attractions - even the quality ones? Is it that people don't give the AK a chance, and the time it deserves? And if they don't, why? I will ponder this some more, but now that we have moved past the "half day" issue, I welcome your thoughts on the problems - the ones I mention, and the others you think the park has.
You see, I have moved on.............and so have you. Any reasonable person would ;), agreeing that AK is a full day park that some people just choose to spend a half day in. But so long as people (yourself not included) claim that you can see the whole park in a half day - I'll keep beating the drum :crazy:.
You want to know WHY I believe Animal Kingdom is viewed as half day park by some?
As the Baron might say................YES!!!!! FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!
When people go to a theme park, they expect rides.
Unfortunately they do, and unfortunately that is not what was intended to be the focus of the AK. If you primarily want rides that are contained within a zoo setting, go to Busch Gardens. I believe AK was trying to be something different. Unfortunately it wasn't what people want.
And some of those things are interesting, but people don't pay $50 a day to get into a museum! Or a zoo, for that matter.
No, they don't. However, most zoos aren't free. Zoos like the Bronx Zoo and Philadelphia Zoo might be half the price of the AK, but I do believe that AK is worth more. I can spend a day plus at the Bronx zoo - there is that much to do. I can spend a day plus at the AK - there is that much to do. I do think that the AK is worth more when you look at the offerings. Yes, zoos are relatively cheap, but even adding 5 rides and 5 shows (to the zoo elements that the others have) warrants a higher cost, IMHO. While a day at the Bronx Zoo is fun and interesting, a day at AK is much better.
Could that be where it's falling short?
That very well could be. As I always say - expectations are everything. If someone goes expecting rides, doesn't find them, and proceeds to skip what is there - they will only spend a half day - but they miss so much.

[raidermatt]

Been a while since I saw any attendance analysis, but I don't think the numbers I recall bear that out. Maybe that happy and sure to be gloating Raiders fan will help us out here.
Ask and ye shall receive...

The Autumn wind is a... Just kidding.

AK Attendance, according to Amusement Business:

1999 8.6 million
2000 8.3
2001 7.8
2002 7.3 (interesting considering the return of a parade and Dinorama...)

Ak was the only WDW park to lose attendance in 2000, even though it was only open for a portion of 1999.

Percentage-wise, its drop in 2001 and 2002 was second only to Epcot each year.

[raidermatt]

Any reasonable person would , agreeing that AK is a full day park that some people just choose to spend a half day in.
For all practical purposes, the entire concept of labeling parks objectively based on how long it takes to "experience" everything in the park is irrelevant.

You're right, calling it a 1/2 day park is a subjective evaluation. However, so is calling it a full-day park. It does not matter that it takes 8 hours to do everything. All that matters is what folks view it as. More specifically, all that matters is what Disney guests in general think. Perception is everything, and more to the point, the perception of the audience as a whole thinks.

Certainly the individual evaluations fall along a curve some kind, and it most likely resembles a bell curve. All that matters is that when you ask folks to rate AK based on "days", its curve comes out more skewed to the 1/2 day notch than the other three parks.

It wouldn't matter if it had 1000 attractions. If folks rated it as a "1/2 experience", it IS a 1/2 day experience. Any argument that says "yeah, but there's 1000 attractions that take 10 minutes each..." is pointless.

[DisneyKidds]

Percentage-wise, its drop in 2001 and 2002 was second only to Epcot each year.
Numbers can be a funny thing, and can mean a lot of things. A question - was AK the only park to lose attendance in 2001 and 2002? That would be no, right? So if the AK declines are solely due to the fact that people are speaking with their feet and abandoning the AK because it is less of a park and less of a value, how do you explain the declines at the other parks? or could it be that the decline in AK attendance doesn't necessarily mean what some want to make it out to be?
For all practical purposes, the entire concept of labeling parks objectively based on how long it takes to "experience" everything in the park is irrelevant.
Sure, but it does make for interesting conversation ;).
More specifically, all that matters is what Disney guests in general think. Perception is everything, and more to the point, the perception of the audience as a whole thinks.
And this is what I hope we have all moved on to discussing. So what do you think the audience is thinking, and why?

[raidermatt]

Numbers can be a funny thing...
I don't think too many folks at Disney think these particular numbers are at all amusing.
A question - was AK the only park to lose attendance in 2001 and 2002?
No. Epcot dropped faster. So AK can hang its hat on something. Of course, Epcot didn't get a whole new "miniland" in 2002 either.

MK and MGM also dropped in both 2001 and 2002, but again, their percentage drops were not as large as AK's in either year.

So if the AK declines are solely due to the fact that people are speaking with their feet and abandoning the AK because it is less of a park and less of a value, how do you explain the declines at the other parks?
Clearly there are many factors impacting attendance. Certainly the economy and tourism are factors, but when it comes to comparing the 4 WDW parks to each other, they are on equal footing. AK even had the advantage in 2002 of getting the most significant addition of the year. Epcot only received its re-made JIYI, MGM got One Man's Dream and a BAH, and MK got Aladdin earlier in the year (but lost Legend of the Lion King, and mostly lost CoP and Timekeeper).

AK also got a brand new resort right next to it, the often praised Animal Kingdom Lodge. That should have helped also.

or could it be that the decline in AK attendance doesn't necessarily mean what some want to make it out to be?
I can only speak for myself, but I don't want to make it out to be anything. The decline is what it is.

Sure, but it does make for interesting conversation
I suppose it all depends on how you define "interesting". After doing my catch-up reading since Friday, "maddening" was more the word that came to mind! ;)

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
----go to Busch Gardens. I believe AK was trying to be something different

Beliefs and facts are very different animals, no matter how often people mix them up.

AK was created specifically to try to capture the market going to Busch Gardens..it was not necessarily supposed to be different, just closer to WDW and one would have hoped better than BG..

Thank you, matt for the attendence figures, etc- GO Raiders!
DK-this is where your claim falls to the ground...

Also, you concede:
(from Disney Kidds post) However, most zoos aren't free. Zoos like the Bronx Zoo and Philadelphia Zoo might be half the price of the AK, but I do believe that AK is worth more. I can spend a day plus at the Bronx zoo - there is that much to do. I can spend a day plus at the AK - there is that much to do. I do think that the AK is worth more when you look at the offerings. Yes, zoos are relatively cheap, but even adding 5 rides and 5 shows (to the zoo elements that the others have) warrants a higher cost, IMHO. While a day at the Bronx Zoo is fun and interesting, a day at AK is much better.

How much better- how much more is it worth? two times? Three? Four? Five? Six? I wish I had you on the witness stand to give your answer before I called my surprise witness:

The Bronx Zoo admission rates are:

Regular Admissions: Adults Child (2 - 12) Seniors (65 +)
Thurs. - Tues. $8.00 $5.00 $6.00
Children under 2 years are always free.
Wednesday: Suggested donation is the same as general admission.

Wednesdays are FREE if you so desire!!!! Try that at AK.

Philadelphia is $9.95. To be fair these are the Winter rates, I cannot find a resource for the summer rates- if they are different, as I would guess they are. Still right now the cost for the Bronx Zoo, which offers much in the way of animal related edutainment is less than one sixth the cost of AK. Once again what you believe might be true (that the zoos cost half as much as AK) and what is fact (the zoos cost much less than half of AK)are not the same.

If Disney wants to compete with Busch Gardens they need to do more than stick the Disney name on a zoo and a few rides. This is the problem...more rides will go a long way towards fixing AK...either that or tear the whole place down and start over with something better because no matter how much you or Disney tries after all this time there is little likelihood that the public is changing its mind about what they want for their $50....and it is not AK.

[raidermatt]

Numbers can be a funny thing...
I don't think too many folks at Disney think these particular numbers are at all amusing.
A question - was AK the only park to lose attendance in 2001 and 2002?
No. Epcot dropped faster. So AK can hang its hat on something. Of course, Epcot didn't get a whole new "miniland" in 2002 either.

MK and MGM also dropped in both 2001 and 2002, but again, their percentage drops were not as large as AK's in either year.

So if the AK declines are solely due to the fact that people are speaking with their feet and abandoning the AK because it is less of a park and less of a value, how do you explain the declines at the other parks?
Clearly there are many factors impacting attendance. Certainly the economy and tourism are factors, but when it comes to comparing the 4 WDW parks to each other, they are on equal footing. AK even had the advantage in 2002 of getting the most significant addition of the year. Epcot only received its re-made JIYI, MGM got One Man's Dream and a BAH, and MK got Aladdin earlier in the year (but lost Legend of the Lion King, and mostly lost CoP and Timekeeper).

AK also got a brand new resort right next to it, the often praised Animal Kingdom Lodge. That should have helped also.

or could it be that the decline in AK attendance doesn't necessarily mean what some want to make it out to be?
I can only speak for myself, but I don't want to make it out to be anything. The decline is what it is.

Sure, but it does make for interesting conversation
I suppose it all depends on how you define "interesting". After doing my catch-up reading since Friday, "maddening" was more the word that came to mind! ;)

And this is what I hope we have all moved on to discussing.
I hoped that too, but then you go and say all us "reasonable" people think AK is a full day park that some choose to call a 1/2 day. That conflicts with the whole idea that the park is defined by what guests (in general) perceive it to be (1/2 day), as opposed to what a time study shows (full day).

So what do you think the audience is thinking, and why?
See next post...

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Numbers can be a funny thing, and can mean a lot of things. A question - was AK the only park to lose attendance in 2001 and 2002? That would be no, right?

And from what number was Epcot dropping from 2001? That would have been a big number from the Millenium Celebration, right? So of course after the party was over there would be a drop. MK had a drop after the 25th anniversary...you need to look at more than just one or even two years, so-- here is a question...name any Disney park BEFORE AK (DCA is not eligible) that had attendance shrink every single year since it opened? {Crickets chirping} Anyone? anyone? Bueller??

Paul

[raidermatt]

So what do you think the audience is thinking, and why?

Its simple. They're thinking its a 1/2 day park. ;)

Why? The most siginifcant reason is there are not enough compelling AND unique things to do.

What is compelling and unique? Kilamanjaro Safaris stands out. Dinosaur has some appeal, but leaves out the little ones. Festival of the Lion King is probably the only show that really hits the mark. Tarzan Rocks! isn't bad. Its Tough to Be a Bug is good, but it is after all, another 3D movie, two of which already exist elsewhere in the parks. Soon, all four parks will have one.

What else is there, that is both compelling, and at least somewhat unique? Maharajah and Pangani are nicely done, and are unique at WDW, but they just aren't that COMPELLING (PKS told us why).

Conservation Station, Tree of Life, Flights, etc, all nice, and in some cases unique. But far from COMPELLING.

So what does Disney add? A character parade. Not bad, and we know Disney guests like parades, but its hardly unique. Not when there are three other character parades on property.

PW? Must admit, its unique for WDW in the way that it is a mouse type coaster with minimal themeing, but that's not unique to outside of WDW, and its hardly COMPELLING to the DISNEY AUDIENCE (and important clarification when defining compelling with respect to WDW).

TS? A spinner, just months after Aladdin was added to MK, and with Dumbo already entrenched at MK. On top of that, its part of a Dinoland meant to be cheap and tacky. Again, unique to what's elsewhere in WDW, but not unique to the outside world.

Carnival games. Yeah.

Besides attractions, there are other factors. The theme itself is a factor, at least initially. An animal theme is not a compelling theme on its own. That doesn't mean it was a bad choice, it just means you have to convince people your animal park is better than anyone else's. Whereas a theme like Epcot is much more unique, and can at least get an initial bump just from the curiosity about the themes.

And then there's a lack of restaurants and nightime activity, as well as there being no monorail/boat service.

But the major problem is that people are not compelled to spend time in this park. More to the point, they are not compelled to spend more time in WDW because of this park. If Disney wants to fix that, they need to incorporate some more stuff that the Disney audience feels like they just MUST see and do, and that they MUST see and do again.

[DisneyKidds]

I don't think too many folks at Disney think these particular numbers are at all amusing.
Sorry Matt, I meant funny thing in that they can be twisted and turned into whatever people want them to be. I don't know why the numbers are what they are,and I'm not going to pretend to know.
AK was created specifically to try to capture the market going to Busch Gardens
Yes, but was it to give them a Busch Gardens experience? I don't think so. If it were they would have put in mega coasters and whatnot. While they wanted to take some market from Busch Gardens, I don't think they intended it to be Busch Gardens a' la Disney.
DK-this is where your claim falls to the ground...
If you say so Mr. Numbers Guru.

Sorry Paul - your zoo winter rate numbers (and those rates for the Bronx Zoo are the winter rates) mean nothing. I looked up those rates but didn't want to make myself look foolish by actually posting them as it is an apples to oranges comparison and proves nothing. If I recall correctly, last summer we paid about $30 each for the Philadelphia and Bronx Zoos. That surprise witness has only hurt your case as your credibility is shot. So called expert witnesses can be a bad thing if they don't come through for you - and this one didn't.
And from what number was Epcot dropping from 2001? That would have been a big number from the Millenium Celebration, right? So of course after the party was over there would be a drop. MK had a drop after the 25th anniversary...
I'm sure these celebrations bumped the numbers for all parks, so I don't get your point. I know when we went to Disney during each of these we didn't limit ourselves to one park. These celebrations generally lure people to WDW, not necessarily a particular park.
name any Disney park BEFORE AK (DCA is not eligible) that had attendance shrink every single year since it opened?
I don't know what all the numbers mean, but I bet that Disney tinkered with the AK numbers for that partial opening year - and I wouldn't read anything into the drop in 2000. Other than that, every park has been down since AK opened, so your little scenario here doesn't mean much. It is not as if AK had decreases while the other parks were growing. I think it is very difficult to pinpoint the cause for the drops. YOu could be right, but you could just as easily be wrong.

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds


Sorry Paul - your zoo winter rate numbers (and those rates for the Bronx Zoo are the winter rates) mean nothing. I looked up those rates but didn't want to make myself look foolish by actually posting them as it is an apples to oranges comparison and proves nothing. If I recall correctly, last summer we paid about $30 each for the Philadelphia and Bronx Zoos. That surprise witness has only hurt your case as your credibility is shot. So called expert witnesses can be a bad thing if they don't come through for you - and this one didn't.


Huh?
I posted the winter rates. I identified that they were winter rates and allowed that the summer rates probably are higher...where did I shoot my credibility? I was completely open about it. How is it not a valid comparison? The zoo is open for business and on a nice day that one gets occasionally in the winter one can enjoy all it has to offer for a fraction of the AK. Again, where did anything get shot other than your argument-shot full of holes...As for your credibility? Do you want to stake yours on that "recollection" that it cost you $30 a person to go to those zoos? I have already told you I don't have a source to check on that, but I lived in both places and frequented both zoos in summers and there is no way I ever paid anything like $30 for a zoo...$16 tops.

At the risk of stating something over- since you said you don't get it, I have to go over it again...
I'm sure these celebrations bumped the numbers for all parks, so I don't get your point

No AK did not get any bump- it has dropped every year. You are only entitled to your opinion not to make up facts.

every park has been down since AK opened, so your little scenario here doesn't mean much.

Again wrong, or false. Maybe matt can address each of the numbers specifically -I think that every park was up before 9/11 except AK of course which only has gone down, but I know that Epcot numbers were definitely up in 2000... then they started down. But that is somewhat understandable because the Millenium Celebration drew people to Epcot specifically. The attendence is measured by the first park people visit. I have no doubt that in 2000 many came to go to Epcot or only to go to Epcot and that drove its numbers to a level from which it had no place to go but down -without something else to draw them in..instead Epcot has gotten less than that...it has been ignored, while AK has been given a new parade, new rides and a vigorous ad campaign (Nahtazoo!) and it still can't get the rest of us to join you in admiring it. Every year fewere people visit it that the year before. You can keep flying into that window pane like the fly does, but it's still going to be a window pane the next time you bump into it...not a way out...AK has failed. The people have spoken-deal with it. Half-day, whole day, the park as it exists is not going to suddenly become popular enough to justify it's investment. The "wait until people just understand it" strategy has failed. We get it. We don't like it- not at that price.

Paul

[DisneyKidds]

Do you want to stake yours on that "recollection" that it cost you $30 a person to go to those zoos
Sure do - it is closer to $30 than $16.
I posted the winter rates. I identified that they were winter rates and allowed that the summer rates probably are higher...where did I shoot my credibility?
By trying to lead people to believe that $8 to $50 was anywhere near a valid comparison. Hey, next time you are in NY and it is 28 degrees your trip to the Bronx zoo is on me ;).
but I know that Epcot numbers were definitely up in 2000...
Correct. MK and MGM probably were as well. If Disney hadn't done something to skew the 1999 opening numbers for the AK high (to be able to make some great claims), the AK might have shown an increase in 2000 as well. Since 2000 they have ALL been down.
AK has failed. The people have spoken-deal with it.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - and it isn't much to deal with. However, it's failures are for much more significant reasons that the fact that it was a so-called "half day" park.

[SnackyStacky]

AK is a full day park that some people just choose to spend a half day in.

I do not agree to that. What I agree to is that if you do each and every attraction, there's enough to fill a whole day. There's a difference. I am not flat out saying it's a whole day park. Matt said it way better than I could:

It wouldn't matter if it had 1000 attractions. If folks rated it as a "1/2 experience", it IS a 1/2 day experience. Any argument that says "yeah, but there's 1000 attractions that take 10 minutes each..." is pointless.

Continuing...

Unfortunately they do, and unfortunately that is not what was intended to be the focus of the AK.

As others have said, what difference does it make what the focus was supposed to be? You said it yourself. All that matters is what the guests think. And the guests ain't too happy with it!

can spend a day plus at the Bronx zoo - there is that much to do. I can spend a day plus at the AK - there is that much to do. I do think that the AK is worth more when you look at the offerings.

Again I say, so what? That's your opinion! What you mean to say is:

I do think that the AK is worth more when I look at the offerings.

Because if you like the offerings, that's great for you. Not everybody feels that way. Case in point, I think the offerings at the Toronto Zoo are just as good as the Animal Kingdom's for half the cost. It's about $24 american for a SUMMER day at the Toronto Zoo. So my opinion is different than yours. That doesn't further the discussion in any manner.

If someone goes expecting rides, doesn't find them, and proceeds to skip what is there - they will only spend a half day - but they miss so much.

WRONG. I can't say it any other way. They aren't missing anything BECAUSE they want rides. They don't want shows, they don't want to go to a petting zoo, they want rides. (They being the hypothetical group you brought up that is "missing so much")

You want the proof?? RIGHT here. I was looking for rides with the animals the first time I went. I found next to none. I went to the Planet Watch, and the jungle treks...I did almost everything except the live shows. The next time I went back, my friend made me sit through the Legend of the Lion King. And I'll tell you. After doing it all, I can honestly say that if I hadn't done it, I personally wouldn't have "missed" out on anything.

(I'd also like to say that I do think it's a beautiful park brimming with potential... I'm not knocking the park...I just feel like I've gotten everything I'm going to get out of it in a couple of hours)

And I don't bring this up to bring in the half day argument again, I bring it up only as some sort of suggestion as to WHY people feel the way they do. Am I right? I don't know. I don't know if everybody else feels that way. But you wanted discussion as to why people consider it a half day park.

[DisneyKidds]

I do not agree to that.
Let me rephrase - AK is a park capable of filling a whole day that peopel choose to only spend a half day in.
As others have said, what difference does it make what the focus was supposed to be? You said it yourself. All that matters is what the guests think. And the guests ain't too happy with it!
Agreed, and it seems that a lot of people don't like it. I'm not disagreeing with that. I just look at why - and it may be because the full days worth of attractions just don't appeal to those people.
Again I say, so what? That's your opinion!
Never represented any of this as anything else. After all, that is all any of use really have around here.
They aren't missing anything BECAUSE they want rides.
So Disney should just give us what they think we want? Isn't that rather un-Walt-like? I think Disney should strive for something more, but sometimes that risk is met with failure.
You want the proof?? RIGHT here. I was looking for rides with the animals the first time I went. I found next to none. I went to the Planet Watch, and the jungle treks...I did almost everything except the live shows.
Wasn't it you over on the Theme Parks board on my AK poll that said you only saw 0 - 5 of the 20 + attractions? So which is it - did you see almost everything, or did you see 0 - 5 things :confused:. By the way, in early polling, the majority of those who dislike the park/spend half day or less have seen less than the whole park. The majority of those who have seen the whole park like it and spend a full day. As I said, it is early, but I bet we see some interesting trends.

[Walt's Frozen Head]

The term "half-day park" has an historical legitimacy in regard to WDW, and does not apply solely to Animal Kingdom.

Magic Kingdom opened: you paid for a day, you got a full day at Magic Kingdom. E.P.C.O.T. Center opened: you paid for a day, you got a full day at one park or the other.

It was only when Disney MGM Studios opened that a "multiple parks in a single day" ticket was required... that Disney had to acknowledge that one of their parks did not hold the attention of the average family for a full day. "Half-day park" was useful shorthand for the concept of a purposely cost-engineered, down-sized park, where the most popular late afternoon attraction is the bus to some other park.

Animal Kingdom was planned, designed, and built as a half-day park.

-WFH

[airlarry!]

Golf claps for M. Head.

Why exactly are we debating what Ei$ner and crew have ADMITTED IS THEIR BUSINESS PLAN!

AK, DCA, MGM, and HK DL were all intentionally built as 1/2 to 3/4 day parks...build 'em cheaper and fill 'em up later as the revenues (allegedly) come piling in!!

I don't mind the debate. I'm not saying that. But let's ground it in the reality that Herr Ei$ner's plan was to build AK like it was...and see if the public would buy it before filling it up.

[raidermatt]

I don't mind the debate. I'm not saying that. But let's ground it in the reality that Herr Ei$ner's plan was to build AK like it was...and see if the public would buy it before filling it up.

Excellent point made by yourself and the Head! We can talk all we want about WHY the public doesn't come, but one of the major points to be made is that AK is less of a park than MK/Epcot because it was designed to be less of a park. An "add-on" park at a full price.

And yes, the stated plan was to fill it up (or at least add some stuff) once it was proven guests liked it.

But, oops! The guests don't like it. Why? Is it ONLY because there wasn't more stuff? Or did the stuff that was there also miss the mark? Its both. There aren't enough compelling things for guests to see/do. If every current attraction WERE compelling, honestly, AK's attendance problems probably wouldn't be nearly so bad. But the lack of GREAT attractions, combined with the lack of ENOUGH attractions has lead to attendance woes.


His Airness (and anyone else of course), here's a question... We know that the PLAN was to add more to AK after it opened, and the company's idea that the public would eat it up was validated. But when the public didn't eat it up, the response was to basically do nothing. Open up what was already in progress (Asia), then find a cheap way to increase the "things to do" quotient (Dinorama).

What would have happened if the park HAD been a hit? For some reason, I think the additions STILL would have been cut, just for different reasons. Mgmt would have said, "Hey, if they love it as is, why should we spend money on additions?" Its the whole idea of give them as little as we think we can get away with.

Since they are a big 0 for 2 on their latest parks, we can't know for sure, but do we really think BK would have been built if AK had been a smash? Or have I crossed the line and become TOO cynical?

[SnackyStacky]

I just look at why - and it may be because the full days worth of attractions just don't appeal to those people.

That's EXACTLY why. But you make it sound like "those people" are wrong. (read: I'm not saying you said this, just that is what it sounds like to me) How did I come to this conclusion?

This is just one of the reasons:

If someone goes expecting rides, doesn't find them, and proceeds to skip what is there - they will only spend a half day - but they miss so much.

But, no! They're NOT missing out! I personally can attest to that! I am looking for rides, but because I was with a group of 5 other people, I had to do what others wanted. So I DID those other things, and they're NOT missing out if all they're looking for is rides.

To me (and obviously others, since you've been called on it before) by saying things like I quoted there, it's like saying that those who DO call it a half-day park are flat out wrong. And I know that's not what you're trying to say, but be advised that that's how it comes across! To a few at least.

Never represented any of this as anything else. After all, that is all any of use really have around here.

Right, BUT, you can't say something like this:

can spend a day plus at the Bronx zoo - there is that much to do. I can spend a day plus at the AK - there is that much to do. I do think that the AK is worth more when you look at the offerings.

to further your argument. Well, you can say it all you want to, but it doesn't help your argument. All it says is that YOU like what they offer. It doesn't offer any help was to why you are in the minority on that issue.

So Disney should just give us what they think we want? Isn't that rather un-Walt-like? I think Disney should strive for something more, but sometimes that risk is met with failure.


That just seems crazy to me. Of COURSE Disney is supposed to give us what we want! We just wouldn't know that we want it yet.

Not to mention the fact that as I have said before, the basis of a theme park is RIDES. The creativity factor and giving us something we don't know we want is in regards to the rides that fill a theme park.

If they wanted to re-create the zoo experience, then re-create it! Don't slap some themeing on a half built zoo, and the Disney logo and call it a theme park! THAT'S their biggest mistake in my opinion. I'm clearly thinking of what everyone is saying about California Adventure. How it is now obvious that Disney feels they can slap their name on anything and the public will swallow it. Animal Kingdom doesn't seem to be far off in that regard. At least to me.

If you believe that I'm not right in my analysis of not enough rides, then answer my, and Baron's question that was asked way back on the 2nd or 3rd page. Remember Baron's question? Let me refresh you:

Why wouldn’t “adding another 10 attractions” (assuming of course they were “Disney” attractions) help?

And lastly...

Wasn't it you over on the Theme Parks board on my AK poll that said you only saw 0 - 5 of the 20 + attractions? So which is it - did you see almost everything, or did you see 0 - 5 things .

Allow me to clarify. The first time I went to Animal Kingdom, I did almost everything. The second time, I went to Tough To Be A Bug, the Safari, Dinosaur, Legend of the Lion King, and Kali River Rapids. In any return trips to the Animal Kingdom, I would go to Tough To Be A Bug, Dinosaur, and the Safari.

I thought you meant what do you do, not what have you done.

Which is another reason I think your question is faulty. Since the majority on this board are repeat visitors, I think the question should read, "Of the 20 or so attractions, how many do you do on a typical visit to Animal Kingdom".

And lastly, I think it's funny that you cling to the fact that it's a full day park when two people have stated that the park was DESIGNED as a half day park. Both Frozen Head, and Voice have said as much.

Also, as I type my response, matt wrote:

What would have happened if the park HAD been a hit? For some reason, I think the additions STILL would have been cut, just for different reasons. Mgmt would have said, "Hey, if they love it as is, why should we spend money on additions?" Its the whole idea of give them as little as we think we can get away with.

No need to type a response. I agree completely with you.

[Mikelly1221]

I have been lurking on this thread and WOW! You guys are good debaters. I am a terrible debater, but I am a hard core, looong time WDW fan. But here is our pattern regarding AK:

1) How in trouble is AK? Summer of 2001, they let Seasonal Passholders (only FL residents) in during the summer blockout dates. Basically, we went for free! How often did my family take advantage of this? Once, only once during the whole summer, and all the other parks were blocked out.

2) January 2002-our family is on vacation for 5 nights staying at OKW. We do every other park all day and until close. Did we visit AK? Nope.

3) I go to Disney bare minimum 2-3 times a month. I last went to AK around 2 months ago. Before that, it had been our one visit during the Summer of 2001!

I enjoy animals, I enjoy all the attractions, but I don't know why, I just don't feel the need to go there, the "Disney" pull is not that strong regarding that park. None of the others (even MGM) have this problem.

Anyway, this is very unscientific, and certainly JMO but hopefully here's a perspective from a Disney vet.

[DisneyKidds]

WFH - glad to see the light come on in the kitchen, and thanks for the perspective on what Disney considered "half day park" in industry lingo. While I have agreed with what you are saying, that AK was designed to be less of a park than the MK and Epcot, do you believe that people today, on this board, are using the term in the same way Disney might have considered it?
Animal Kingdom was planned, designed, and built as a half-day park.
Half day park meaning less of a park than the MK and Epcot, or half day park meaning that Disney only intended for guests to spend only 5 hours there?
All it says is that YOU like what they offer. It doesn't offer any help was to why you are in the minority on that issue.
Am I, though? On this board we kick around attendance figures and speculate on what they mean and how they reflect the public's opinions - but how do any of us know we are right? Have people studied other theme park destinations that have four seperate gates and determined that the 4th gate never lagged in attendance as the overall resort grew larger and larger? Have we studied attendance trends as a four gate destination ages? I really don't know. What I do know is that it is only here that I hear so much negativity about AK and the supposed "fact" that the majority of people don't like it. I'll continue to follow the Ak poll over on the Theme Parks board, but so far over 90% of those that voted like the AK. So, no - I don't know that I'm ready to concede that I am in the minority.

AK has several problems. One is that it is less of a park than the MK and Epcot. That is a pretty straight forward issue. Another problem is that some people don't like what is there. I don't think that is a function of the parks size, but the type of entertainment it offers.
We just wouldn't know that we want it yet.
I think you are saying that Disney should give us what we want, before we know we want it. That I agree with and that was what Walt did. Is it just possible (AK size issues aside) that Disney thought they were doing just this in the type of entertainment they did include in the AK?
the basis of a theme park is RIDES.
The basis as theme parks as we know them, but does that mean they can never be something different?
How it is now obvious that Disney feels they can slap their name on anything and the public will swallow it. Animal Kingdom doesn't seem to be far off in that regard. At least to me.
Are you trying to say that Disney just slapped up a cheap half zoo and put the logo on it figuring that the public would swallow it? While they may have cut some things out, and while they may have missed the mark that you wanted them to hit, the AK represented quite an investment. Disney put a lot into the themeing and plantings, etc. Would they spend so much for that stuff if the intent was to feed substandard fare to the guest? I don't think so.
If you believe that I'm not right in my analysis of not enough rides, then answer my, and Baron's question that was asked way back on the 2nd or 3rd page. Remember Baron's question? Let me refresh you
No need to remind me, and I finally figured out why we aren't getting anywhere. You aren't reading my posts!!!!! I answered that question a couple pages back. Here it is..............
That question is, why won't 10 new attractions fix the AK problems? If you ask me, even with 10 new attractions, if people continue to tour the Ak the way they currently do, those 10 attractions might add only a handful that those people want to see. So it adds a couple of hours to the time they spend there, but that isn't going to solve the problem of why people don't see fit to experience the whole of the AK.
Really, if they add Beastly Kingdom it will probably include an E ticket, another ride, and a number of other shows or exhibits. Maybe if Disney added 10 new attractions and they were all rides you might feel differently. However, 10 new attractions would likely only include a handful of rides, among other things, as that is the way the AK was designed - not necessarily focused on rides. If that were the case I doubt it would change your feelings about the park, would it?
I thought you meant what do you do, not what have you done.
No. What I am attempting to determine is whether people have seen all of what is there before they decided they didn't like the park. Problem is, most people on that poll seem to like the park ;).

ps - welcome to the debate Mikelley 1221. Glad to see another lurker come out of the shadows!!!! No need to be good at debating - you just need to have an opinion. The stronger the better - if we want to keep the discussion interesting ;).

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
I'm not sure how others tour the parks, but I'll stick with Walt's idea of a park the entire family can enjoy together. I'll give you that the MK could be viewed not as a two day park, but a one day park that keeps everyone happy at the same time.

I have been avoiding analyzing why my family found Ak so disappointing but now that I think about it your own words from this early post in this thread are a problem...How is a whole family supposed to enjoy Dinosaur, Primeval Whirl and Kali- I am not talking about sitting out with the baby- I am talking about toddlers who just don't measure up or many of them don't like getting soaking wet- that is not their idea of fun- that eliminated over an hour of attractions by your count right there that the family cannot enjoy together. The Boneyard is hardly enjoyable to the parents and older kids so there goes some more...ITTBAB is a great 3D movie but many a screaming child is taken out of there and I know many younger kids want nothing to do with 3 D movies -oops there goes another half hour...now you are down by your count to about 6 hours and most of it is shows and looking at animals not much different from a zoo....so for the family with the 4 and 6 year old how is that worth it to spend $20+ or more than the Bronx Zoo? This is why so many find that this park offers too little for a family with toddlers in tow to spend a whole day at those prices...

Paul

[raidermatt]

While I have agreed with what you are saying, that AK was designed to be less of a park than the MK and Epcot, do you believe that people today, on this board, are using the term in the same way Disney might have considered it?
Ok, try this. Get out your DVD of Meatballs, starring Bill Murray. Now find the scene where he is giving his pep talk, and make this your mantra:

It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter.

Disney designed it to be a park they knew the public wouldn't pay full price for. The public has decided the goal was met.

I'll continue to follow the Ak poll over on the Theme Parks board, but so far over 90% of those that voted like the AK. So, no - I don't know that I'm ready to concede that I am in the minority.
Yeah, I said I like it too. Because I do, as does my family, and most of those that we travel to WDW with. But the more important questions are how do we like it when compared to the other offerings? How much time do we actually spend there? And, ultimately, do we actually stay longer because AK is there?

In other words, is it a COMPELLING reason to go to WDW? Disney felt they already had the compelling reasons, and they just wanted to add something that could get you to stay longer while you were there, and still charge what they do for the truly compelling parks they already had.

So, they built the park with that in mind. Problem is, some people decided that AK isn't worth staying another day, so they skip it. Others decided it was worth their time, but since not a lot of new stuff has been going on at the other parks, they just took the time away from those. After all, AK closes early enough that they can still get over to Epcot and catch the nightime shows, or have dinner in WS.

Most of the people that go to AK don't hate it. But there's just not enough that truly LOVE it to have any kind of positive impact on WDW's overall attendance. If you want people to stay 7 days instead of 5, or 8 instead of 7, you have to give them a darn good reason. AND further, you have to give them a darn good reason to keep spending the same amount of time in the places they were already going.

However, 10 new attractions would likely only include a handful of rides, among other things, as that is the way the AK was designed - not necessarily focused on rides. If that were the case I doubt it would change your feelings about the park, would it?
If they are COMPELLING reasons to go for Disney guests, then it would greatly improve AK's appeal. If the current offerings are not COMPELLING, then of course it wouldn't help all that much to just add the same kind of stuff.

Of course, even if some great new additions came AK's way, it wouldn't help WDW as whole all that much if the other parks were allowed to stagnate.

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
. I'll continue to follow the Ak poll over on the Theme Parks board, but so far over 90% of those that voted like the AK. So, no - I don't know that I'm ready to concede that I am in the minority.

With the attendence shrinking every year- your "majority" will have be down to a minority, eventually.

Paul:D :) ;) ;)

[DisneyKidds]

How is a whole family supposed to enjoy Dinosaur, Primeval Whirl and Kali- I am not talking about sitting out with the baby- I am talking about toddlers who just don't measure up or many of them don't like getting soaking wet- that is not their idea of fun- that eliminated over an hour of attractions by your count right there that the family cannot enjoy together. The Boneyard is hardly enjoyable to the parents and older kids so there goes some more...ITTBAB is a great 3D movie but many a screaming child is taken out of there and I know many younger kids want nothing to do with 3 D movies -oops there goes another half hour...now you are down by your count to about 6 hours and most of it is shows and looking at animals not much different from a zoo....so for the family with the 4 and 6 year old how is that worth it to spend $20+ or more than the Bronx Zoo?
Just like the "whole family" won't ride Dino, Whirl, and Kali at the same time, niether will the same family ride Space, Splash, Thunder, Alien, Pirates, Haunted Mantion, etc. at the same time. It just isn't feasible to make a park where all people will do all things. However, it seems that you want to heap that expectation upon AK. So my wife and the baby wait on the bridge and make the elephants squirt us as my 4 yo daughter and I come down Kali, or look at the dinosaur skeleton as I ride Dino, or we grab a rest while the kids enjoy the boneyard. That is no different than the MK. The only point I was making in the post you referenced was that in the MK your family theoretically could split up, with everyone on a ride or attraction every minute for a full day. However, that is niether feasible (as parents have to stay with their kids), nor what people actually do (as the polls I put up on family touring trends indicated that the vast majority of families stay together in the parks). Sure, this means that one family member might be bored by a particular attraction they end up doing, or a few might have to take in the scenery while other grab a ride - but that is the same at any park.

On another note, we actually enjoy the AK more now that we have kids (currently 1 and 4). The 4 yo can do just about everything but Whirl (not that we do them all - and we still spend a full day ;)). Having young kids who aren't just looking for a ride and can appreciate the walking trails and other exhibits has made us appreciate the AK more. AK is actually better if you are a family with a 4 and 6 yo than if you had no kids, IMHO. With young kids we definitely find the AK to be worth $20 a day more than the Bronx Zoo because you not only have the zoo aspect that they love, but you have some great shows and a number of rides - but that is us.
Disney designed it to be a park they knew the public wouldn't pay full price for.
I'd be curious to explore this idea of the multi-day park hopper pass coincident with the opening of MGM (a by design "half day", as in less than the MK and Epcot but not literally a half day park). Was the sole reason for the park hopper pass to give the guest the ability to go elsewhere as Disney knew they would only spend 4 to 6 hours in MGM, or was it just something that made sense in general to give the guest the flexibility to come and go in a 4 gate destination?
In other words, is it a COMPELLING reason to go to WDW? Disney felt they already had the compelling reasons, and they just wanted to add something that could get you to stay longer while you were there, and still charge what they do for the truly compelling parks they already had.
Maybe, maybe not. You keep throwing out COMPELLING, but that is a personal thing as well. Our longest trips of the year is extended to 9 days. There are other factors that have contributed to that extension (more vacation time, more vacation $$, etc.), but prior to the AK opening our longest trip was a week. But again, the answer to the question of whether AK extended your trip is going to be different for every family.

[WEDWAY100]

By Mr. Kidds’ narrow definition, I agree with him that it would take a full day to experience everything at AK. But for me, an enjoyable full day park is about choices. I may choose to experience many of the things a park has to offer, while deciding not to do other things at the park. With AK, if you want to spend a full day there, you have no choice. You must experience everything they offer, or you will not be able to fill up your entire day.

Raidermatt said
Most of the people that go to AK don't hate it. But there's just not enough that truly LOVE it to have any kind of positive impact on WDW's overall attendance. If you want people to stay 7 days instead of 5, or 8 instead of 7, you have to give them a darn good reason. AND further, you have to give them a darn good reason to keep spending the same amount of time in the places they were already going.

Amen. Why is that so hard for them to understand?

[All Aboard]

Crowd patterns are also indicative of what percentage of the day folks feel the park is worth. The closing time for the park has been pulled back to 5pm during most times of the year. Prior to the parade, the place would be virtually vacant after about 3pm. They were even offering Florida Residents discounts at the counter service restaurants (which virtually never happens) if we dined after 4pm.

When comparing the attendance data amongst the parks, there is another important note. I read here somewhere that within those figures, a guest is only counted once per day. At the first park he/she arrives.

Rarely does anyone hop "to" AK since it closes earlier than all of the other parks. More likely, folks hop "from" AK to Epcot or MK on any given day. Therefore, the variance between number of guests who visited AK v. Epcot or AK v. MK is very likely greater than what is shown in those numbers.

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Just like the "whole family" won't ride Dino, Whirl, and Kali at the same time, niether will the same family ride Space, Splash, Thunder, Alien, Pirates, Haunted Mantion, etc. at the same time. It just isn't feasible to make a park where all people will do all things. However, it seems that you want to heap that expectation upon AK. .....(SNIP) Sure, this means that one family member might be bored by a particular attraction they end up doing, or a few might have to take in the scenery while other grab a ride - but that is the same at any park

No it is not the same at any park because at MK you can eliminate all of those rides and STILL not do everything..because they give you choices...as noted by WEDWAY you HAVE to do all of it to fill the day at AK and that is not even possible if your kids are too short-so AK gets this "heaped" on it because it fails to offer ENOUGH for EVERYONE- (I believe I said this in my first post on this subject)

You listed all the wonderful entertainment offered at AK and wanted to know reasons WHY people did not choose to partake all of it...I have told you at least one major reason...too little of it is designed to appeal to a whole family touring the parks as most do-together. (I did not even touch on the narrow appeal of Character meets to families of mixed ages, Pocohontas's limited appeal beyond the toddlers... we're gettting down to very little beyond the zoo aspects.)

Given the facts that AK is underperforming (or do you dispute that) what do you think will happen to this park? What would you do to fix it? Just try to educate the public to see it as you do? If that is your proposed strategy- that trial balloon floated here on this board popped about 60 posts ago...

Paul:cool:

[DisneyKidds]

ENOUGH for EVERYONE
What exactly does that mean :confused:. Does that mean enough for every individual? Does that mean enough for everyone as a collective family? Let me try this illustration...........

....DW.................Me.................DD
......................Primevil..................
......................Dinosaur................
Tarzan.............Tarzan....................
Safari..............Safari...............Safari
Lion King..........Lion King..........Lion King
Parade...........Parade...............Parade
......................Asia Trail..........Asia Trail
......................Africa Trail........Africa Trail
......................Tree of Life......Tree of Life
......................Kali..................Kali
.............................................Pocah ontas
.............................................Plane t watch
.............................................Trice ratops
.............................................Boney ard

So, for my DW individually the AK only has 4 attractions (not much of a park), for me individually there are 10 (a half day?), and for our DD individually 11 (half day?). There are only 3 overlapping attractions. However, for the family as a whole, experiencing the park together, there are 14. Add in some of the things on the map that I didn't include in my initial list for this thread and it probably grows to 17 or so. So how many attractions would you say we should see - only the 3 that appeal to all three people? No, we do the full compliment to keep eveyone happy. And guess what, DW and I even enjoy the things that might not be on our list. If my wife went alone, or me, or our DD - the park might be a half day, but when we go together, and everyone sees what they like while we are together, the park has ENOUGH for EVERYONE. Of course that is just for our family, and every family is different. I won't say that AK has enough for the PKS family, but you cant say that it doesn't have enough for everyone in the Kidd's family.

That is where the appeal, and particularly the theme and nature of the attractions comes in. It is about more than the number of attractions. Even with limited attractions, it isn't very hard to get to the point where a family collectively wants to see most of those limited attractions - if they appeal to members of the group- which fills quite a bit of time.

[raidermatt]

Just like the "whole family" won't ride Dino, Whirl, and Kali at the same time, niether will the same family ride Space, Splash, Thunder, Alien, Pirates, Haunted Mantion, etc. at the same time.
Unless I forgot one or two, MK has 5 rides with height restrictions:

Splash, Space Mt, Big Thunder, AE, and Goofy's Barnstormer (a low height requirment yes, but still a requirement).

AK has 3.

Dinosaur, Kali, and PW.

True, some very young ones find HM and Pirates too intense, but not many, and certainly the Bug 3d would also fall into this category.

So using the earlier attactions counts of low 50's for MK, and low 20's for AK, that still leaves MK with over twice as many things for entire families to enjoy. So even if AK's attractions were considered by guests to be equal in appeal, it would fall well short in numbers.

It just isn't feasible to make a park where all people will do all things.
But it is very possible to come darn close. The problem is, its harder to impress people without resorting to physical thrills. Guess which route Disney is taking?

Was the sole reason for the park hopper pass to give the guest the ability to go elsewhere as Disney knew they would only spend 4 to 6 hours in MGM, or was it just something that made sense in general to give the guest the flexibility to come and go in a 4 gate destination?
(MGM made it a 3-gate destination)
Certainly the flixibility is a plus for guest's who want it, so "sole reason" is probably not accurate. Driving force is probably more accurate. Or do you really think that Disney execs though MGM was of equal value to MK/Epcot, and that guests would think so as well?

Maybe, maybe not. You keep throwing out COMPELLING, but that is a personal thing as well.
I have almost been exclusively talking about the Disney audience taken as a whole, not about what I or my family thinks is compelling. That's why I reference attendance figures and hours of operation instead of passing on what my wife or son think, and its those numbers that I use to say that things either are or are not compelling. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

As I've said before I LIKE AK. If we drilled down to all of the factors that determined how long we stay at WDW, we probably do add a day or two because AK is there. Most or our party ranks it either just above or just below MGM. But that has very little relevance to the debate/discussion, if any.

[raidermatt]

Scoop, there's definitely some truth in what you say. If AK had received more appealing additions, we probably wouldn't still be talking about how it should or shouldn't have been opened.

Yeah, some still site MGM as a failed philosophy. But the fact that Disney followed up with the plan to expand and add had largely removed it from anyones active complaint list.

Until AK was opened in the same manner, and then NOT followed up on.

Also, comparing a full IOA to a full, true "Disney" park is a mistake. The philosophy behind them is different, and the audience is different. Or at least it should be...


In the end, the reality is that Disney's "healthiest" park overall is Orlando's Disney-MGM Studios (MK certainly has more attendance but its operational costs are quite a bit more).
Dangerous thinking, my man. MGM may generate a greater rate of return than MK on a daily basis (taking your word for it), but which do you think convinces more families to travel to WDW? Which is responsible for more hotel rooms being booked, and restaurants being filled? (If we can't agree its MK, then we can't go on until you come to your senses;) )

So, isn't it POSSIBLE at least, that if MGM were expanded to MK proportions, it could actually be more profitable for WDW as a whole than it is today?

[All Aboard]

DinseyKidds, I think the fact that your wife only enjoys four attractions at AK speaks volumes. It flies squarely in the face of one of Walt's chief objectives when he set forth to change the world of theme parks.

For my wife, it's even worse. Knock at the Tarzan show, she hates it. She's down to three attractions. She'll put up with riding Dinosaur once, but will sit out if Nat & I want to ride an additional time or two (which is generally easy since the queue is almost always empty when we visit.)

Given this, my wife really doesn't even want to go to AK. She'd much rather spend time at a park where all of us can enjoy the majority of attractions together. That describes MK & Epcot and, to a lesser degree, (but greater than AK) the Studios.

As time goes by, many AK attractions have lost their "repeat value" on us. It's rare that we even "do" the safari any more. We never visit the two "trails", nor do we venture out to Conservation Station.

When it's hot, Nat and I will get there at opening, ride Kali until we are tired of it (usually 4-6 times), take a couple of spins on Dinosaur, one trip on TriceraTop, and catch the Lion King before departing for another park. If it's cold, delete Kali and we are there even less time. One other important note - we rarely ever spend any $ at AK on anything. We usually grab a late lunch at Park #2.

Only personal preferences, I know. And it doesn't really contribute much to this discussion. But none of this can be said for our family vis a vis the other three parks.

[stlphil]

Well here is another only-occasional poster about to jump into the fray. First let me say that I like Animal Kingdom and look forward to going to it.

Is AK a half-day park? Of course it is; it least it certainly was when it first opened. If you remove from DK's original list all the activities that weren't there when the park opened, you are down to less than 6 hours, and this is to "see it all" according to his own time table. Six hours equals less than a half day park. (I would argue that even 8 hours is a half-day park, although this is a quibble. But thinking that 8 hours is a full day just because the park is only open that long is to be falling for Disney marketing.)

I also know this from personal experience. Does anyone remember the show on ABC that Drew Carey hosted to promo the park just before it opened? They really struggled to fill the hour showing what there was to do. I figured that there had to be a lot more than what they showed.

Then my wife and I visited the park not too long after its opening. We got there early (before 8am) because we'd heard the safari animals would be more active early in the day. We were out of the park by a little after 2pm. This included a sit-down lunch at Rainforest Cafe, watching the restorers work on Sue the T.Rex, and a >30 minute wait for that lame boat ride that no longer exists. We did all the rides, shows, and walks. We even rode the train and checked out Conservation Station and the petting zoo. All we missed were the kiddie fossil dig, and some of the exhibits on Discovery Island.

So half-day-park was my reality, and I essentially did it all. I also was not shy about telling others afterward that it was a half-day park, and thank goodness for Park Hopper tickets because there was some really good stuff there.

So now they have added a tacky carnival area, a show or two, a parade, a short/disappointing raft ride, and a really nice animal walk. Hardly compelling stuff. The real Sue is gone, replaced by a plaster cast, and so is the lame boat ride (which could have been something special if Imagineering had their way). So now it is MAYBE a 3/4 day park. Except that I did it all in 6 hours on that first trip and know now that I don't want to see several of those attractions again.

And so we still leave by 2pm.

One final point about comparisons to a zoo- our local zoo is the St. Louis Zoo. It is a great zoo, and is absolutely free. It has some animal trails that are incredibly well-themed and comparable to AK, including small but important features such as animal tracks in the pavement like you find at AK, and exhibits about conservation that rival AK. So while it may not be general and only affects me and others from this area, the animal exhibits (other than the safari ride) do not add significant value for me when determining whether I got my $50 worth at AK.

[d-r]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
d-r, do you realize that you only listed 7 attractions - and think that it would take 5 or 6 hours? Well, there is your half day, and as the Stacky one would say, you only hit 30% of the park. See a theme here folks? First off, AK - the whole of it - takes a lot longer than anyone realizes. Problem is, not enough people want to see the whole of the AK.



No disney kidds - I listed 7 in one sentance, and then a couple of sentences later I listed three more that I said we usually walk right on. That's ten - and what I listed as one thing some lists might include as two - like counting the train and conservation station as two things, I only think of that as one "going to conservation station." Or counting every kiddie ride in dinorama as separate, or just saying "dinorama." I don't count walking through the Oasis on the way to Africa as an attraction even if I do stop to look or something, or going through the tree of life gardens on the way to tough to be a bug, etc. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy those things. That isn't 30 percent of the park. We may not go to every single thing every time - sometimes we don't bother with Kali if we don't want to get wet, for instance. That is because Kali sucks - it is too short and it gets you drenched. If it was grizzly river we'd probably never skip it. Also, I doubt if we would ever go to both the lion king and tarzan in the same day it is just too much sitting, and after you've seen tarzan a couple of times it just isn't that good really to sit through if you've already sat through something. So if we skipped one show and kali that would be 30% of the park - that is a problem right there. And please don't count things like standing in line to see characters as an attraction! We would never do that! We don't have children and so we don't go to the boneyard or the spinner.

I don't doubt that if you did ever single thing there you could spend the time there from opening to close, but even that is an eight hour day, not much for a theme park.

I really like AK and have always felt satisfied every time I visited - but we've never come close to being there from opening to close. I look forward to going there Monday - we are flying back Monday afternoon and will have to leave at 2 or 3, a perfect day for the AK-

DR

[raidermatt]

Problem is, not enough people want to see the whole of the AK.
I do agree that this is a problem. A related problem is that apparently too many people don't see enough things as having repeat value. The fact that there is less to do in the first place compounds the problem.

So, setting aside what we think Disney will or will not do, what is YOUR proposed solution to this problem? Anyone else?

[d-r]

Originally posted by raidermatt

So, setting aside what we think Disney will or will not do, what is YOUR proposed solution to this problem? Anyone else?

Are you asking what people would do, wether or not disney would do what they did?

DR

[raidermatt]

Are you asking what people would do, wether or not disney would do what they did?
Yes. To me, this is much more interesting than just trying to predict what Disney will do.

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
What exactly does that mean :confused:. Does that mean enough for every individual? Does that mean enough for everyone as a collective family? Let me try this illustration...........

....DW.................Me.................DD
......................Primevil..................
......................Dinosaur................
Tarzan.............Tarzan....................
Safari..............Safari...............Safari
Lion King..........Lion King..........Lion King
Parade...........Parade...............Parade
......................Asia Trail..........Asia Trail
......................Africa Trail........Africa Trail
......................Tree of Life......Tree of Life
......................Kali..................Kali
.............................................Pocah ontas
.............................................Plane t watch
.............................................Trice ratops
.............................................Boney ard

So, for my DW individually the AK only has 4 attractions (not much of a park), for me individually there are 10 (a half day?), and for our DD individually 11 (half day?). There are only 3 overlapping attractions. However, for the family as a whole, experiencing the park together, there are 14. Add in some of the things on the map that I didn't include in my initial list for this thread and it probably grows to 17 or so. So how many attractions would you say we should see - only the 3 that appeal to all three people? No, we do the full compliment to keep eveyone happy. And guess what, DW and I even enjoy the things that might not be on our list. If my wife went alone, or me, or our DD - the park might be a half day, but when we go together, and everyone sees what they like while we are together, the park has ENOUGH for EVERYONE. Of course that is just for our family, and every family is different. I won't say that AK has enough for the PKS family, but you cant say that it doesn't have enough for everyone in the Kidd's family.

That is where the appeal, and particularly the theme and nature of the attractions comes in. It is about more than the number of attractions. Even with limited attractions, it isn't very hard to get to the point where a family collectively wants to see most of those limited attractions - if they appeal to members of the group- which fills quite a bit of time.

Now try your little table illustration at the MK-then you may understand what it means to have ENOUGH for EVERYONE-you will see as matt pointed out that overlapping are alot more than 3 or 4 things...you may realize why families don't try out "all" that Ak has to offer throughout the day- because they could be spending quality time someplace else.


As for scoop joining the fray-I assume he is just being facetious or absurd to stir things up...His argument about MGM and IOA is so ridiculous....IOA had an increase in attendence last year- one fo the few theme parks to do so...as matt noted IOA also is addressing a very different market- it is not for families and that is why it has taken it a few years to find its market. Families have discovered that it is NOT a full day park for those with younger children--not ENOUGH for EVERYONE there either...but definitely enough for the teen/thrill seekers and they are a growing market... they are finding this park and its attendence is growing with great word of mouth and promotion-- meanwhile at AK-as more and more people have a chance to see the park and tell their friends about it fewer and fewer folks come to AK...so if Disney thinks like scoop- the company is headed for more such "success"-like matt I would like to hear others ideas including Mr Kidds for what needs to be done to fix the AK problem- or is it fixable or does he yet even admit there is a problem--his posts continue to argue or at least suggest that the guests are the problem not the park...:confused:

Paul

[DisneyKidds]

So, setting aside what we think Disney will or will not do, what is YOUR proposed solution to this problem? Anyone else?
You know, I really don't know. I've gone on record that I don't think Beastly Kingdom and a few other new attractions would solve the problem. That might entice a few people to spend another hour or two, but that isn't going to make all the things that aren't COMPELLING now all of a sudden COMPELLING. Furthermore, to maintain the concept, it wouldn't make sense for a new area (like BK) to just be rides. The park is about georgaphy, history, ecology, etc - including exhibits and shows. BK most certainly would include some exhibits and shows dedicated to lore and myth. Is more of that type of entertainment going to get it done, even though it might be very good? Probably not. As Snacky has pointed out, people want rides - but that isn't what AK is all about.

So, does Disney abandon the idea and concept of the AK that people haven't embraced? They could go ride heavy and people might like it. They could further push the "zoo" to the background by dropping the supposed concern for the animals and extending the park hours and nightime offerings. As Disney is good at doing, they could throw in a spectacular evening show. However, I do think that Disney prides themselves on the quality of the animal environment and care. Should they abandon that for a buck? That would be selling out, and might make it a "full day" park, but it would be a shame IMHO.

I guess what I'd do is build AK out to what it was originally intended to be. Add BK, with the same mix of rides, shows and attractions that the other "lands" have. In doing so Disney could quell the criticism that they got cheap and cut the park short. From there I would stand the high moral ground and maintain the concept as originally envisioned. Have the zoo aspect of the park be a testament to what can be done in a zoo to give the animals a top notch, authentic environment. Mix in a few more quality shows like Lion as people do seem to appreciate that. All in all it might not increase the attendance by leaps and bounds, but I bet they could live with that. Of course it isn't my money, so that is easy to say. I also enjoy the AK now and would continue to - without the long lines and extra crowds that might be generated by selling out the concept.

[PKS44]

I just remembered something else about park hoppers-someone correct me if I remember things wrongly but first there was MK then Epcot- You could at that time buy one park one day passes or 3 day park hopper passes- there was not a 2 day park hopper. I remember this was also a time when only resort guests or those with park hoppers could even ride the Epcot/TTC monorail- single day tickets were not good enough to get on it...then came MGM and the 3 day tickets were discontinued- I know this is true because I went the first year of MGM on a package that promised 3 day hoppers and they no longer existed and the package just gave us 3 separate one day park tickets instead-much to my consternation- since we still could not get on the monorail-something I really wanted to do! So once they added the 3rd park they "insisted" you needed at least 4 days to see the parks...then came AK...and guess what???you still can get 4 day hoppers- Disney is not only owning up to the fact that AK is not a full day park- it has not added a day at all to the system as every other park did when they added it! Now I am being facetious and I do miss those 3 day hoppers- and I bet Disney is glad to force people to buy that 4th day...and yet fewer people are using that extra day to go to AK every year...

Paul

[DisneyKidds]

Now try your little table illustration at the MK-then you may understand what it means to have ENOUGH for EVERYONE-you will see as matt pointed out that overlapping are alot more than 3 or 4 things...
Don't think I haven't - but typing it all out would bring back that carpel tunnel syndrom Baron brought upon me before he went into hiding ;).

Seriously though, the overlap in the MK (for us) would be 7. Not that much for a park of 53+ (same % wise to AK in fact). Again, collectively, we probably cover 70% of available attractions. That brings up another key point, and an aspect where many just don't care to give the AK the time. The overlap of 7 for the MK would primarily be due to my DW's fairly short list for the MK - and of those 7 two would be parades and one the fireworks. What does that show? Well, it shows that, while Snacky may be right that he and his clan want rides, not everyone wants rides. We love atmosphere. We love to walk around the park and take in the sights, stroll down Main Street and soak it up, etc. We also love the AK because we don't view the paths from one area to the next as a way to get from here to there, but an attraction in and of itself, just like Main Street is. Yes, AK has a problem because people haven't embraced that. That doesn't mean the people are the problem - you build a park for the audience and you have to make it appeal - so ultimately the poark is the problem. In the end I don't know that it is a problem that warrants a complete overhaul, changing the landscape and nature of the park.

[DisneyKidds]

DinseyKidds, I think the fact that your wife only enjoys four attractions at AK speaks volumes.
Yes, it does. It speaks volumes about the potential appeal of rides and attractions to the individual. However, as I stated earlier, I don't believe that Disney, even Walt, built parks for the individual. Family appeal is the key.

Beyond that, you have to look at the appeal that things other than attractions generate. You see, my DW loves the AK, even though she would only have 4 items on her favorite attraction list. First and foremost, she loves the atmosphere and setting of the AK. That is an important aspect in all the Disney parks. Again, I believe the parks are, and should be, about more than the rides. Secondly, while many items might not be on her Ak list if she were to go alone, she enjoys doing most of the things we do together as a family, things she might not choose to do otherwise.

[David in Manassas]

"""2. Here's an interesting figure I was once told about DS (at my visit last May): DS is the most visited park for one day visits. Apparently, alot of adults who are in Orlando for whatever reason, end up at DS with one day tickets. The shows are generally considered to be the cause of this (after all MK and Epcot don't really have any live shows directed toward adults with the possible exception of some of WS's music and the Saloon show)."""

Well my wife and I just returned from our first solo trip to WDW for Marathon weekend and to be honest ...MGM shows for adults??? (Besides Indy what is there....now that Hunchback is gone...)

BTW...we spent the majority of our 4 days in the Animal Kingdom and EPCOT. It's amazing when you don't have your kids how much you find you have missed!

David

[BRERALEX]

i just got back returned sunday the day of the marathon.

Spent the majority at epcot and Mk spent three and a half hours at Animal kingdom.

They should really rename it to lots of birds a couple of animals kingdom.

i never even look to see when Ak closes because i know i wont be there that late or even remotely close to that late.

forget the half day park stuff though I'm going to start calling it a prepark. the place i go before the real parks.

AK might be the park of choice for thrill seekers and zoo-lovers alike...

Kali river rapids is a joke. one BIG drop and thats it short @$$ ride short as can be. Dino i like its ok but not everwhelming. And then what else is there kilo safaris IS cool i like it but no matter how early you go you get crappy quick views of the animals cept for maybe the tommy's and theres a ton of birds big deal.

its not a fair opinion cause i have great adventures safari right here at home and you see a ton of animals and at your own pace and with great visibility. the fact that the guide on the safaris at AK say "you might see over on your right......." stinks.

Lion king show rocks but im not always down to sit and watch a show. the tree of life is magnificent. But i would never waste preciuos vaca time on more then a couple of hours in that place. I just always feel im missing out on the real fun.

[BRERALEX]

this analogy is goin to make no sense but heck why not go for it

remember the movie twins where they explain Arnold was the all the good stuff and Danny devito was the left over crap that came out thats how i feel about Ak.

to me MK and Epcot are 1 and 2. MGM used to be my fav but i dont find enough to do. Theres not enough of those little hidden places like Epcot and MK for me.

Epcot is so grand and has so many wonderful nooks and cranies that it's nearly always the first park we explore each trip.

grand is like the perfect word for epcot. I think im awed by epcot every trip.

Mk is just in my heart. there is no disney for me without MK. I have too many memories afetr so manytrips as a kid at the place.

at mgm RnR was cool at the beginning but after i really broke it down the whole Aerosmith thing doesnt work for me...its like they tried to go for something they thought was great pop culture and didnt look far enough into the future. aerosmith is a great band no doubt but.........20 years from now..........it cant be the same. they are great but they are no Beatles. Im too young to even appreciate the beatles but still know they aint no beatles. so to me they missed the mark. TOT make sup for that miss with it being such a great detailed fun ride. It captures it all for me. TOT rocks and the new changes to the sequences makes it rock even more since they are not just sitting there on their success but keep trying to make it better and feel that responsibility to the public. i like that. INdy is great but dont you feel it needs an update its the same thing over and over but IS A GREAT SHOW dont get me wrong. Little mermaid rocks, the studio tours felt rushed and short this last visit. Using Pearl harbor brings too many memories of a sucky love triangle in a mediocre movie. Action was great but the theming was bad i mean the story was bad.

[d-r]

OK Matt, here is what I would do. No interest here in what disney would do or what it would cost.

1. I think that there is room in Harambe behind Tusker house to put a theatre for the Lion King. I would move it there - I wouldn't do this, though, if it would bother the animals on the Safari. With that show, the Safari, and the path, I'd be done with Africa.

2. I'd think seriously about the fire mt idea for Asia. I like the idea of it starting out as sitting down then the floor dropping out and it is a stander. Since I'm only working on AK, I'd put it there if it wouldn't bother the animals. I'd be done with Asia. Oh one other thing I'd do in Asia. If I'm the Disney Co. I am just building a theme park in Hong Kong, and thinking about what in mainland China. My partners in the Chinese government ought to throw me a bone. I want a breeding pair of pandas. I'd make sure that this was done very right and correctly and with the best of care. Do you think there would be anyway to add an extra loop into Kali to make it longer?

3. On the side of the river between Asia and Dinorama, I'd put in Australia. I'd theme a sourin over Austrailia ride to an outback bush pilot place, and tie in the rescuers down under in a tiny way in some of the decor (about the level of mr. toad handing owl the dead in pooh). I'd have a walk through with some wooden boardwalks that go through Austrailian wildlife, like kangaroos, wallabees, kualas, platypi.

4. The concept of conservation station is sort of weird, and doesn't fit in if I add in Austrailia. I'm changing it to south america. A lot of it already fits with south america - the rain forest stuff, for example, and I'd repurpose that. I'd probably leave in the "back stage" stuff - this is the challenge, a way to include that in the story if it is south america, and the affection section. I'd have one of my story people work on that. I also need something e-ticket-ish here, but not something big or loud. Maybe this could be one of those family friendly attractions so many people want - maybe a ride through south america with jose carioca and kuzco or something. I'd be sure to use all those south american characters generously. Maybe something with the little plane that flew over the big mountain.

5. Wouldn't it be neat if there was an ice station? Maybe a simulator ride of some sort to "get there." Maybe something like the living seas. Maybe their could be a north pole with some polar bears rescued from crappy zoos living in a super nice pool. Maybe a south pole with some pinguins.

6. There is absolutely nothing wrong with dinorama that a bulldozer couldn't fix. So, hold primeval whirl and triceretop spin in your mind for minute, we are going to repurpose them below. There is a retaining pond behind dinoland. I'm going to build a heck of a roller coaster right over and through that pond. Think of the idea of the excavater, think of something between thunder mt. and indiana jones in paris, going through and down in to the ground and into what looks like it will be the water (maybe a clear tunnel through the water). This won't be a cedar point hyper coaster, but a good coaster. Not themed like Chester and Hester, necessarily, more like a runaway excavator car (I know, it sounds like thunder mt., it would have to be cooler than that, but I'll have my story guy work on it).

7. Camp Minnie Mickey. OK, we've moved the LK theatre that is currently themed like a summer camp. I never really liked that theme for this show. In it's place, I'm going to copy Flik's Fun Fair, and repurpose the two rides I took out of dinorama as buggy rides and put them in the fun fair for the kids (I know the wild mouse has a height requirement, but put something there for the bigger kids, too). It will probably bug somebody (ha a pun) that flik's fun fair is over here and tough to be a bug is in the tree of life. I don't really care. I'd have a little back story like they did in disneyland that we went to clear the land and we found all this fair back there that the bugs had put together.

I'd leave the characters there for the kids. There is a ton of empty space back here. Pocohontos forest friends confuses me. Here are some N. American Animals. They may just have to stay. I don't know if they would be able to stand it there though, because there is still a lot of land on past there that hasn't been used and in it I am going to finish the dream of so many, and put in a beastly kingdom. One really cool coaster, one something else, maybe the unicorn thing. Not a lot really, and I am more or less doing this for the point of doing it. I think there is still enough land behind there to cut a channel that connects to the water that is back past there to a point that would come out below the rain forest cafe outside the ticket windows. Then on the other side of that pond I'd cut a channel about 1/2 mile to the animal kingdom lodge, where guests could get on past the pool area.

8. I wouldn't do a lot in the oasis or discovery island. I'd bring back the boats with it clearly denoted on the guidemaps and signs that these are transportation, not attractions. I'd keep flametree bbq open all the time. I'd add in a passholder lounge.

9. I'd keep a lot of those fun little things that the AK does so well, like the school thing in Harambe, traveling performers, sunrise safari, etc.

That's what I'd do. I don't really care if it is notazu or not. There'd be stuff for little kids, big kids, those without kids, and it would stick with the theme. I added a kiddie land, three or four e-tickets, and some major draw animals.

DR

[Another Voice]

Mr. Scoop - 'Sounds Dangerous' is a show that appeals to adults?

There's a limit to how far one can stretch reality to a make a point. Claiming that Drew-in-the-ear Theater appeals to anyone is simply taking things to far.

Oh - and there's a big difference between the number of "adults" visiting the park and the number of "adult tickets" sold to a place. You can have all kinds of fun with numbers when you need to tell The Big Boss things he wants to here (like how Ron was stupid to build MK and Epcot, and how brilliant the Studios is).

Never mistake PowerPoint presenations for a representation of real life.

[raidermatt]

Seriously though, the overlap in the MK (for us) would be 7. Not that much for a park of 53+ (same % wise to AK in fact).
Hey, that's great. To each his/her own. But you don't really think that the average family that visits MK only has 7 attractions that they all like (including parades/fireworks), do you?

We love atmosphere. We love to walk around the park and take in the sights, stroll down Main Street and soak it up, etc.
Ah yes! An excellent point, and certainly this was meant to be an integral part of Disneyland, MK and Epcot. I'll agree that AK has some of this going for it as well. But it was never meant to be an either/or. MK and Epcot prove you can have a large park with lots of appealing rides/attractions, exhibits, AND atmosphere. Again, AK obviously has SOMETHING going for it. Its not like nobody goes. But atmosphere alone won't cut it.

In the end I don't know that it is a problem that warrants a complete overhaul, changing the landscape and nature of the park.
I agree. Even with unlimited funds, I don't think I'd go this far.

I've gone on record that I don't think Beastly Kingdom and a few other new attractions would solve the problem. That might entice a few people to spend another hour or two, but that isn't going to make all the things that aren't COMPELLING now all of a sudden COMPELLING.
Also very true. Honestly, I'm also not necessarily a BK fan. I think its a deviation from the overall theme/concept. But certainly a new land is in order, one that contains 3-4 attractions, along the lines that you mentioned. And, yes, there are also some things that can/should be done with some of the already existing non-COMPELLING stuff.

[raidermatt]

Scoop, let me first start with this:
In the end, I'll stick with my prediction (and I think maybe yours) that if Disney had added and grown AK like they did with DS (within the same time frame), few would be complaining about AK.
Yes, I pretty much agree. I don't think that is the BEST ultimate goal for a Disney park, but its a far better scenario than what has actually happened with AK.

However, from what I've been told, many at WDW consider DS to be the "healthiest" park based on several factors:
Again, though, I'm not convinced this definition of healthiest is necessarily the best for WDW, nor is it necessarily something that needs to be copied in all new Disney parks. WDW is a resort destination first and foremost, and any view of the parks has to include a "big picture" view of what it does for the entire resort.

Apparently, alot of adults who are in Orlando for whatever reason, end up at DS with one day tickets. The shows are generally considered to be the cause of this
Gee, if this is such a plus, shutting down Hunchback would seem to be a questionable move.

So, in the end, yes, MK is the mothership for WDW. But, alot of how DS was built and grown is a strong model for many reasons.
Who says the correct model for WDW is the Alien armada from Independence Day? This whole concept of trying to create small profitable parks that are weak sisters to MK and DL is a damaging concept.

1. When you lower your goals, the quality/appeal of the end result is lowered as well.

2. The public is not as dumb as some would make them out to be. When you build less and charge the same, they figure it out.

3. When the main message being sent to your creative folks is "keep it small, we don't want to create another MK!", you're not going to get the best results.

4. The ever important brand name is damaged.

I'd add Beauty, Animation, WWTBAM, Sounds Dangerous, and probably the Backlot Tour to Indy.
I share AV's skepticism about Sounds Dangerous, as well as the Backlot Tour. I also wonder about Millionaire's long term appeal, given the demise of the TV show.


It easily has the broadest based appeal and is the primary park for the much maligned but alway sought teenage market.
Maybe so, but still the 3rd most attended park at WDW, and that's with 1 and 2 getting virtually nothing new for years. (only TT stands out)

Still, saying that one of the four parks is going to slant a bit towards teens and the families that love them is one thing. Using that as a model for everything you do is another.

[David in Manassas]

Forgot to mention that when my wife saw Dinorama for the first time the exact words out of her mouth were :"Oh my goodness....it's just like Lincoln Park"

Lincoln Park, no defunct was an "amusement park" of our childhood back in Massachusetts. One of those parks originally built by the Union Streetcar company as a way of encouraging ridership to the end of the line. Although I have many found memories of the place, my wife does not and equates it with a old run down carnival.

Funny have we have come full circle from what Walt Disney was trying to get away from...

David

[Another Voice]

"Yes, yes, indeed it was the oft-hallowed (and equally oft-late) Imagineers who dreamed up and created Sounds Dangerous all on their own..."

Yes, yes, the horror of forced synergy can cause even the brightest minds to dim. It's also a shinning expample of all that's wrong with a place like Animal Kingdom.

It used to be The Disney Way to say "I have a woonderful idea for a show. Can we afford to build a quaility product?" A lot of wonderful ideas were scrapped that way, but what got built was generally pretty good.

But now the way things happen - everything from 'Sounds Dangerous' to 'Anmial Kingdom' to 'The Country Beats Movie' - is "The spreadsheet says you spend this much money. Make something for marketing to sell."

Now occansionally you can get something good out of that process, but most of the time you get low quality, assigment level product that lacks the passion and the effort that goes into a show which the creators actually care about.

Most of Animal Kingdom represents assembly line thinking. It shows and the guests respond accordingly.

[DisneyKidds]

But you don't really think that the average family that visits MK only has 7 attractions that they all like (including parades/fireworks), do you?
Wouldn't surprise me all that much. Take a 20-40 somethiing person (nixes Dumbo, Carousel, and maybe a few other Fantasyland rides, as well as Aladdin and most/all of ToonTown, the Speedway and Astro Orbitor) who doesn't like coasters (out goes Space and Thunder) or scary/spooky rides (by by Alien and Haunted Mansion), gets motion sick (no Teacups), isn't impressed with the dated Adventurland rides (Pirates, Jungle Cruise) and doesn't want to climb (no hoofing up the Treehouse), and just doesn't want to do the non-COMPELLING attractions (Tiki Room, Hall of Presidents, Country Bears, TTA, Tom Sawyer, Riverboat) and what are you left with - Pooh, Pan and Small World (maybe), perhaps Buzz, then Splash and the parades/fireworks. It really isn't a stretch at all to get to that point for many an individual and possibly have a small overlap. Of course, that person with their family may do just about all of the rides mentioned above and enjoy them because of the others in the family, but they might never do them on their own. I bet you could find a lot of people like that. But guess what, they still love the MK because it is about more than the sum of it's parts for the individual. There is something more there. I also believe there is something more to the AK than many people give themselves the chance to see, running out after they hit the 3 rides they are compelledto go on.

[raidermatt]

But you don't really think that the average family that visits MK only has 7 attractions that they all like (including parades/fireworks), do you?
Wouldn't surprise me all that much.
Can't prove if of course, but I couldn't disagree more with your statement. I would be EXTREMELY surprised (and you should be too;) ) if the AVERAGE family had no more overlap at MK than 7 attractions/shows/parades. Your analysis is more of a worst case scenario for a MK visitor, as opposed to the average visitor. Remember, this isn't the average person walking along 5th Avenue in New York, this is the average family already in the MK.

Of course, that person with their family may do just about all of the rides mentioned above and enjoy them because of the others in the family, but they might never do them on their own.
True, to a certain extent, but most likely less common than you would think. Still, even that person who wouldn't ride that stuff is taking his family to WDW, and more specifically, MK, because all things considered, its where he wants to be. Again, if AK and MK both have the atmosphere down, as you speculate, SOMETHING is making folks go to MK at almost twice the rate of AK.

I also believe there is something more to the AK than many people give themselves the chance to see, running out after they hit the 3 rides they are compelled to go on.
Of course there is more to see if they leave before seeing everything. But is it stuff that they would have thought worth their valuable WDW time? If yes, then why aren't they seeing it? Why do they find other things at other parks they like, but somehow miss the things at AK? What did Disney do wrong, and how do they address it? If the answer is no, even if they saw it, they wouldn't think it worth their WDW time, then Disney's choices are to start replacing things, or giving up and accept the lowered attendance and concession/merhandise sales.

[Mikelly1221]

As time goes by, many AK attractions have lost their "repeat value" on us.

Gcurling said that about 2 pages ago, and it really sums up the problem for me. All the other parks have rides that have repeat value-we'll go on them over and over and over and over....and never get tired of them. The only ones that do that for us at AK is Dinosaur and ITTBAB. Shows-FOTLK. Not worth going to a whole park for. We'll just skip it, or see it in the AM and go somewhere else in the PM.

Another thing...almost everyone can drive not too far from their house and be where they can see animals, a zoo, etc. AK is not unique to people. People have to come to Disney to see MK, EPCOT, MGM, but they can go anywhere and see animals, even exotic ones. The concept is not special enough.

Also, what is the deal about having Rainforest the only sit-down (not counter service) restaurant in the whole place? That is very short-sighted planning.

(Climbs down off her soapbox)
;)

[space42]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Wouldn't surprise me all that much. Take a 20-40 somethiing person (nixes Dumbo, Carousel, and maybe a few other Fantasyland rides, as well as Aladdin and most/all of ToonTown, the Speedway and Astro Orbitor) who doesn't like coasters (out goes Space and Thunder) or scary/spooky rides (by by Alien and Haunted Mansion), gets motion sick (no Teacups), isn't impressed with the dated Adventurland rides (Pirates, Jungle Cruise) and doesn't want to climb (no hoofing up the Treehouse), and just doesn't want to do the non-COMPELLING attractions (Tiki Room, Hall of Presidents, Country Bears, TTA, Tom Sawyer, Riverboat) and what are you left with - Pooh, Pan and Small World (maybe), perhaps Buzz, then Splash and the parades/fireworks. It really isn't a stretch at all to get to that point for many an individual and possibly have a small overlap. .

No offense DisneyKidds but...

This 'imaginary' person would be the current Disney's ideal customer and would probably have a great time at the new HK Disneyland without all of those silly expensive rides...

Ugg.. Does anyone really go to the Magic Kingdom and NOT ride Pirates, Jungle Cruise, Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, Country Bears, and Thunder Mountain??????????????????? I guess we will find out when HK Disneyland opens in 2005.

[DisneyKidds]

I would be EXTREMELY surprised (and you should be too ) if the AVERAGE family had no more overlap at MK than 7 attractions/shows/parades.
Fair enough. Our family, while not at all unique to those travelling to WDW, does include my DW who is bigger on atmosphere than rides, and young children who can't/don't want to do a lot of things. What do you think the overlap number might be for the average family? 10, 15, 20? Still not that high a %. Furthermore, our AK overlap is only 3 or 4, but your "average" family's overlap would likely be higher there as well.
Still, even that person who wouldn't ride that stuff is taking his family to WDW, and more specifically, MK, because all things considered, its where he wants to be.
Exactly, because they have seen it, know it, and there is something more attracting them than just the rides and attractions.
if AK and MK both have the atmosphere down, as you speculate, SOMETHING is making folks go to MK at almost twice the rate of AK.
Yeah, I know. I don't believe that it is because the AK is missing something, per se. I think it is just that what the AK has is not a theme that appeals to those people. That is why I don't know that there is a quick "fix" for the AK. People just aren't buying the atmosphere of the zoo/nathazu :crazy:. Is it because AK is really so bad, or is it that it is decent (or maybe even pretty good ;)), but not what people want?
Of course there is more to see if they leave before seeing everything. But is it stuff that they would have thought worth their valuable WDW time?
Gets back to what people want, and think is worthy of their time. I'll bring it back to the theme and concept. People likely skip stuff (like the walking trails, planet watch, oasis, among other things) because they think it is typical zoo stuff and that is not how they want to spend their time. They only do the rides and shows (and not all of them at that) because, like Snacky, they want rides, something that was not intended to be the main focus of the park. AK is ultimately a concept that did not fly. Disney realized that - hence the nathazu tag line to try and change the perceptions that people have that are keeping them from experiencing the park. I'm not going to say it is the guests fault, that they don't get the concept, I'll just say the concept failed.
Another thing...almost everyone can drive not too far from their house and be where they can see animals, a zoo, etc. AK is not unique to people. People have to come to Disney to see MK, EPCOT, MGM, but they can go anywhere and see animals, even exotic ones. The concept is not special enough.
While AK is better than your average local zoo (the Bronx Zoo is a pretty darned good zoo, but for total entertainement value AK blows it away), people don't know that, and don't care to find that out. Again, that is why they came up with the rediculous slogan. Even adding acouple of new e-tickets and some other attractions isn't going to change all of that. This is really the root cause of the problems.

As I said earlier, the only hope to make AK into an attendance blockbuster would be to abandon the concept. Add lots of rides, extend the hours, have loud nightime entertainment spectaculars, etc. However, it might even be too late for that :(, if it were even the right thing to do, which I don't think it is.

[DisneyKidds]

This 'imaginary' person would be the current Disney's ideal customer and would probably have a great time at the new HK Disneyland without all of those silly expensive rides...
I doubt it. Main Street USA is probably one of the best non-attractions in the MK. It sets the mood and tone. It is a special entrance to a special place. Are they investing in that kind of quality in the HK park in general? I doubt it. As I have been saying, Disney doesn't have to be, and isn't always, about the rides, but you do have to have quality throughout.
Ugg.. Does anyone really go to the Magic Kingdom and NOT ride Pirates, Jungle Cruise, Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, Country Bears, and Thunder Mountain???????????????????
Yup - that ain't no imaginary person, that is my honest to goodness wife ;). She has recently been on Jungle Cruise because our daughter is finally old enough to enjoy it, but my wife could take it or leave it. I'm the same way. What do I need cheesy fake animals and bad jokes for when I can see the real thing? Yeah, it's a classic, and we have seen it, but repeat value? No. Country Bears, not compelling, although cute to see now and again. Both of these she will do with our daughter, but on her own? No. Now Space and Thunder - well, if you don't like coasters (even little ones) then no. Pirates and Haunted Mansion - well, no, they don't appeal to everyone. But none of that keeps the MK from being her favorite park. She can appreciate everything that is there, even if she might not go gaga over the rides. She feels the same way about AK. So do I.

[d-r]

Originally posted by Mikelly1221

Also, what is the deal about having Rainforest the only sit-down (not counter service) restaurant in the whole place? That is very short-sighted planning.


I don't know how true it is, but I remember hearing a few years ago that Disney made the deal with rain forest cafe that they would be the exclusive sit-down restaurant in the park. I'm not sure why they bargained that hard, to me there are two too many rfcs at wdw. But somebody at disney must really like them, because they are also at downtown disney in anaheim, and in Tokyo Disneyland's Ikspiari, and at the disney village in Paris. They are almost as ubiquitous at disney resorts as mcdonalds and planet hollywood. Heck, they may be building one in Hong Kong for all I know.

DR

[Another Voice]

Very quickly - The Rainforest Cafe at the Animal Kingdom was really the first shot at the "shopping mall" concept for the theme parks. The thinking was that Disney could reap better returns by leasing out lower margin businesses to companies that specialize in those businesses. Mind you that theme park resturants don't exactly have low margins, but they don't look all that nice compared to all the other numbers on the spreadsheets.

Second, and the one that still drives the corporate types green, it's thought that other "brands" enhance the entertainment value of the park. A brand experience like a Rainforest Cafe, much like a big anchor store at your local mall, is considered to be a major draw and an inducement to visit the park in the first place; i.e. they expected people to say "let's go to the Animal Kingdom, they have a Rainforest Cafe&reg; there!"

This idea was carried even further with California Adventure were much, much marketing was spent on the hyping restaurants owned and operated by Wolfgang Puck and Mondavi Wineries. These "destination" locations were to act for DCA much like "destination stores" do for a mall - people will go to a mall specifically because it has an Abercrombie and Fitch store and then do some addtional shopping while they are there for example. The brand experience is also behind to continuing drive to get full blown McDonalds in all of the parks.

Of course the same problem happened here as it has with all the other brilliant marketing and profit making schemes from Disney - they forgot to tell the guest that they were supposed to like this kind of stuff. Funny as it is, guests go to a Disney theme park to see a Disney theme park, not to eat at overpriced restaurants.

Fortunetly for Rainforest, they swung a better deal for Animal Kingdom than Puckie and the grape guys swung at DCA. Oh, and the flops doesn't mean Disney's given up in the idea, but they are finding it a harder time to get companies to pay Disney's asking price.

[Walt's Frozen Head]

I don't believe that it is because the AK is missing something, per se. I think it is just that what the AK has is not a theme that appeals to those people. That is why I don't know that there is a quick "fix" for the AK. Animal Kingdom is missing a lot of things.

AK is missing dinner restaurants and park-closing shows. This savings was part of the decision to build a half-day park in the first place.

AK is missing a theme. Is there a person in the world who, when they first heard "Disney's Animal Kingdom," didn't think "a zoo done Disney-style?" To find out now it's NAHTAZU, well, that only leaves the question of what, precisely, is it?

AK is missing flow and balance. They may have saved money by delaying and cancelling and substituting for Asia and Australia and Beastly Kingdom and the Excavator, but they offered a crippled and bandaged half-day park, as a result.

AK is missing out on a lot of Disney Magic. The areas of AK that most resemble zoos resemble very good zoos, but not great zoos. The most obvious attempt to Disney-fy a standard concept, tacking the Little Red storyline onto a safari ride, has no replay value, and seemed forced and tedious, even the first time though. As a person who was really looking forward to a zoo done Disney-style, I was disappointed that AK's animal displays were not overwhelming (although they are very nice, and probably my own favorite parts of AK).

Ultimately, Animal Kingdom is missing heart, and soul, and spirit. Animal Kingdom was the inspiration of accountants (Disney World + something that smells like Busch Gardens without so much beer = fewer Disney resort occupants spending money in Tampa on Wednesday or Thursday); a marketing gimmick that's not going away.

Without the heart and soul and spirit, AK lacks focus, direction, and, in the end, identity.

The first step towards fixing things would be defining AK in terms of what it is to be, rather than what it is NAHT.

-WFH

[raidermatt]

What do you think the overlap number might be for the average family? 10, 15, 20? Still not that high a %.
But do families really care about the percentage? I don't really think so. Let's just suppose the percentage of attractions the whole family wants to do is the same at AK and MK. Let's say it's 20% (I still think the % is higher on average at MK, but the point can be made assuming an equal percentage). Using the numbers from earlier in the thread, the family wants to do about 4 or 5 at AK, and 10 or 11 at MK. So where are they going to go?

Now, lets say the family leans towards the adventurous side, and consists of older children. In addition to the all family attractions, AK gives them Dinosaur, Kali, PW, and maybe Bug. MK gives them Space Mt, Splash Mt, Big Thunder and AE. Pirates, HM and the Tea Cups come into play. Again MK wins.

Have a couple of wee ones and have to stick to the tame stuff? AK gives you KS (if they can handle the jostling), TS, Camp Minnie/Mickey, a daytime parade, three shows and maybe Bug. MK gives you all of Fantasyland (except maybe the teacups), Toontown, Tland Transit Authority, THREE spinners, some race cars, Buzz, JC, maybe Pirates, a choo-choo train, a daytime parade, and many others. Not even close.

So unless the stuff at AK is more COMPELLING (I know you are sick of seeing that word in caps, but its a perfect fit) than the stuff at AK, AK has a problem. Throw in the likely fact that the most compelling things at AK are not as appealing as the best of MK, and AK has a bigger problem.

Atmosphere? Even if AK hits the mark, very few are going to find it BETTER than MK.

MK may not be a restaurant haven like WS, but compared to AK its a culinary delight.

The only things AK has going for it OVER MK?

1- More live shows.
2- Animals.

Some folks will like the "natural" atmosphere better, but that probably hurts with at least as many people as it helps.


For whatever its worth, for the three of us (me, DW, and DS (4)), the overlap at AK is:

Kilamanjaro, Kali, Tarzan, Lion King, Pangani and maybe Maharajah.

At MK:

Railroad, Buzz, TTA, IaSW, Peter Pan, Pooh, Snow White, HM, HoP, Liberty Belle, Pirates, Jungle Cruise, Tiki Room, Country Bears, Spectro and FitS.

And yes, I'm sure about all of the MK attractions because those are the same ones my wife and I would ride at DL before my son was born. (TTA was the People Mover, no Pooh but has Toad, etc...)

So that's 5 or 6 at AK, and 14 at MK, 16 if FitS and Spectro are running.

[Mikelly1221]

My family enjoys Rainforest, but we would have liked to have seen one sit-down restaurant at AK that's not a chain. Yes, Disney's food is overpriced, but we enjoy the different types of restaurants Disney has to offer.

I know I'm not adding much meat to this discussion, but in effect, AK is on a slightly higher plane for us than Sea World & Busch Gardens. We like it, we don't have anything against it, it's not bad, but it doesn't have the Disney Draw like the other ones have for us. And I am a Disney nut! If it doesn't get us Disney nuts, it's got real problems.

[DVC-Landbaron]

I gotta tell you, I haven't been real enthusiastic about posting lately. Seems we covered this same ground a couple years ago (albeit with more voices than just mine!!).

But I couldn't help but send in a line or two if just to welcome back one of the true "Disney" believers!!

So, without further fanfare:

Welcome back

Walt's Frozen Head
(the good guy)*

Now, excuse me while I go back and actually read the post. It's bound to be great!!! :crazy:







*obscure record reference (circa 1967)

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
I don't believe that it is because the AK is missing something, per se. I think it is just that what the AK has is not a theme that appeals to those people. That is why I don't know that there is a quick "fix" for the AK. People just aren't buying the atmosphere of the zoo/nathazu :crazy:. Is it because AK is really so bad, or is it that it is decent (or maybe even pretty good ;)), but not what people want?

Apparently Mr Kidds would have us think of AK as the opera equivalent of theme parks..so good for the discriminating taste of the cognoscenti but lost on the masses who determine whether such things make it commercially.

What was that word again????

Oh yes.

PISH!

What is there was done on a budget and it shows. Disney got just what they paid for...IF they are willing to invest a LOT more now (because they have squandered their brand identity it will cost much more) the park can be rescued from failure...Feeding those critters won't be getting cheaper but the attendence will keep getting smaller without the right fix.

Paul

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron


Now, excuse me while I go back and actually read the post. It's bound to be great!!! :crazy:



And it was!!! BRAVO MR. HEAD!!!

... and DITTO!!

[DisneyKidds]

Apparently Mr Kidds would have us think of AK as the opera equivalent of theme parks..so good for the discriminating taste of the cognoscenti but lost on the masses who determine whether such things make it commercially.
First off, this is not at all what I am saying or implying. Sorry if you feel that way. Secondly, I don't give a rats *** about what makes it commercially.

If you are an animal lover (or have kids that are) chances are you are going to like the AK and spend time there. It doesn't take a discriminating cognoscenti :rolleyes: for that. If you have been to WDW umpteen times (and can't wait to get back umpteen more :)) and you don't have a need or desire to ride rides all day long, there is a lot to be seen and appreciated in the AK. Do you dispute that (and if you do, have you seen it)? It doesn't take an opera fan :rolleyes: for that. It is no knock on guests that they don't want to linger over the AK, especially since it suffers from the identity crisis the frozen one wowed the Baron with.

AK has it's problems - I have not and will not dispute that. It has simply been a miss for many in the theme and appeal department. We have had some good discussion on that. If the theme appealed more to people, the park could be much more successful with the current amount of attractions, IMHO (although more would be good).
Oh yes.

PISH!

I'm glad you like the word ;).
So where are they going to go?
Sure Matt, if people had to choose one over the other I agree they would choose MK over AK. MK is bigger, it has more to offer, and I haven't disagreed with that. That still doesn't change the fact that a family can spend a full day enjoying the AK.
the family wants to do about 4 or 5 at AK
Now, lets say the family leans towards the adventurous side, and consists of older children.
Have a couple of wee ones and have to stick to the tame stuff?
Thank you for FINALLY getting my point - even if you didn't realize it. Add up all those attractions it takes to keep the core family, the adventurous members, and the kiddies happy and you have hit just about all the major attractions in the AK. I'll bet you my next paycheck you didn't do it in a half a day!!!!!

Sure, MK gives the same family more. Well, I don't give a rats rump about that either. Sure, the family with limited days does, and they may choose to do the MK because it offers more. However, my point was never that people should choose AK over MK, or that AK was as good as MK.
I gotta tell you, I haven't been real enthusiastic about posting lately. Seems we covered this same ground a couple years ago
Sure, but isn't it good to see everyone talking again? (why do you think I started this thread - so I could get beat up again for liking the AK :crazy: :confused: ) Think before you answer that question - because I know you have been reading along ;). Which has to make me say - you were so big on getting me to "answer the questions", and when I do not a word from you. While much of this may be old ground, we have had a few new twists and questions. Care to add something, or don't you think you are up to it :(. Come on Baron - we finally have a 10 pager, and without 5 of them being typed by you (the other three by me ;), and the rest by the fine folks here putting up with our literary gymnastics :eek: ). Can't ya give us one wee little page? Will 10 attractions "fix" the AK? Could those 10 be a similar mix of rides shows and exhibit as the AK currently has, or would they all have to be rides? Would those 10 have to redefine the theme and identity of the park? Is identity crisis the AK's biggest problem in your eyes? Could the AK thrive with just 20 someodd attractions if it didn't suffer from it's identity crisis? We may have harped on AK in the past, but I don't think we have answered all those questions, have we? Wudd'ya think, buddy?

DK say "I think we deserve some answers".
Baron replies "You want answers?"
DK says "I want the truth!"

Come on, the next line is yours..................................

[raidermatt]

Secondly, I don't give a rats *** about what makes it commercially.
Ah, but Disney does, and even Walt's Disney did. What we are seeing is a tale of two Disneys:

1- "Old" Disney. Create something because you BELIEVE in it, you have a TALENT for it, and you are PASSIONATE about it. Yes, you have to believe it will work commercially, but that's not what truly motivates you.

2- "New" Disney. Find something you think people will buy and try to make it effeciently.

AK, for all the things some of us love about it, was created using method #2. It shows in its content, its scope, and its attendance.

That still doesn't change the fact that a family can spend a full day enjoying the AK.
As has been pointed out multiple times, it does not matter that they CAN spend a full day enjoying AK. There are many places a family CAN spend a full day enjoying themselves, but that doesn't mean they all qualify for a Disney theme park.

Thank you for FINALLY getting my point - even if you didn't realize it. Add up all those attractions it takes to keep the core family, the adventurous members, and the kiddies happy and you have hit just about all the major attractions in the AK.
:confused:

But as you hypothesized, and your poll shows, and most of us agree, Disney's CORE audience are families that for the most part tour together. They aren't going to spend the majority of their day splitting up. So the heart of the park, if it is to appeal to Disney's core audience, must be that "overlap" we spoke of. That has to be enough to convince a family to take another day off of work and pay for another night's lodging.

Not only does there have to be enough of these types of attractions, they must be appealing to enough Disney guests. AK falls short on both counts. The "whys" of the situation are summed up pretty well by the Frozen One.

Sure, MK gives the same family more. Well, I don't give a rats rump about that either.
Whether you do or not, others do figure this into their value equation.

Sure, the family with limited days does, and they may choose to do the MK because it offers more.
Yes, if its an either/or, they will choose MK. Why you can't see that as a problem for an equally priced park I'm not sure. Less value is less value, and its going to impact decisions regardless of whatever limits exist or don't exist.

Will 10 attractions "fix" the AK?
Look, the only thing that will truly "fix" AK, or DCA for that matter, is a philosophy change, which we've discussed many times. Do it right, not cheap. EXCEED expectations. Protect the brand name, not just exploit it. Provide value. Etc, etc, etc.

Without that, yes, the situation would still be improved with new attractions. But the liklihood that those attractions will be appealing/compelling is significantly diminished.

However, for AK to truly "work", it has to be appealing enough to convince more people not just to visit, but to add days to their trip to visit it. Not take that day away from Epcot, MK, or MGM.

That means Disney has to realize ALL of the parks must continually receive attention.

The only way I see that happening is with the before-mentioned philosophy change.

[DisneyKidds]

Disney's CORE audience are families that for the most part tour together. They aren't going to spend the majority of their day splitting up. So the heart of the park, if it is to appeal to Disney's core audience, must be that "overlap" we spoke of.
This is where our disconnect is. I don't see the overlap as the key. Are you saying that a family touring the park together will only do the rides that overlap? I couldn't disagree more. Lets say you are a group of 3. You get to an attraction. You ask the group - "does everyone want to do this attraction?" 1 or 2 out of 3 say yes. Do you do the attraction, or do you skip it? We do the attraction. Maybe a big part of AK's problem is that many families skip it. Personally, I don't see that, or get why a family would do that. Now if you decide to do the attraction you will hit a couple of scenarios. If it is a show all three might see it - together. If it is a thrill ride that person who doesn't want to ride might take the time to get a drink, hit the head, etc. Personally, I don't view that as "splitting up". It is not like they have seperated from the group to go tour the park on their own.
1- "Old" Disney. Create something because you BELIEVE in it, you have a TALENT for it, and you are PASSIONATE about it. Yes, you have to believe it will work commercially, but that's not what truly motivates you.

2- "New" Disney. Find something you think people will buy and try to make it effeciently.

AK, for all the things some of us love about it, was created using method #2. It shows in its content, its scope, and its attendance.

I believe that there is a combination of 1 and 2. Unfortunately, the detrimental philosophy of cheap and efficient has affected what could have been a great park. There goes Burbank ruining things again. However, there were a lot of TALENTED, PASSIONATE people who BELIEVED very much and worked very hard at making the AK the best it could be given the constraints placed upon them. It is not like nobody cared - and a lot of the TALENT and PASSION those who worked on the park in Orlando possessed can be seen.

[raidermatt]

I don't see the overlap as the key
It was the initial inspiration for Walt to create Disneyland. He wanted a place where families could go and experience things together.

Now, don't get absolute on me. It doesn't mean EVERY attraction must appeal to EVERY member of EVERY family. That's impossible. But it does mean the park must slant in that direction. Besides the quality and showmanship, this was going to differentiate Disneyland from other parks/fairs/carnivals.

Its very well documented that this was a critical goal of the park.

Are you saying that a family touring the park together will only do the rides that overlap?
Like I said, don't get absolute on me....

You ask the group - "does everyone want to do this attraction?" 1 or 2 out of 3 say yes. Do you do the attraction, or do you skip it?
We are talking about families on family vacations, as opposed to the more generic groups, and that is important to keep in mind.

Do the 1 or 2 family members do the attraction? Sometimes. But if the park requires too much of this, and doesn't offer enough "overlap", they won't come back, or will spend less time there.

Maybe a big part of AK's problem is that many families skip it.
No, the problem is that it forces families to make too many of these choices for the number of attractions it has, especially given the questionable appeal of some of those attractions. Granted, its not the only problem, but it is a problem. And of course it all stems from the philosophy issue.

Personally, I don't see that, or get why a family would do that.
For those that make the choice, the time spent together is more important than the attraction itself. Several things come into play...how much does that family member REALLY want to do that attraction, and how do they balance that against their time with the whole family.

There's nothing wrong with either choice, its just that Disney parks were meant to be geared towards those who don't want very many of these split-ups during the day.

However, there were a lot of TALENTED, PASSIONATE people who BELIEVED very much and worked very hard at making the AK the best it could be given the constraints placed upon them. It is not like nobody cared - and a lot of the TALENT and PASSION those who worked on the park in Orlando possessed can be seen.
Time for my periodic disclaimer...

When I make statements like "lacking passion and talent", I do not mean to say that there are no individuals left at Disney who have a talent and/or passion (though certainly there are fewer than there once were...). I just mean that the driving forces behind these projects, the ones that make the strategic decisions and set the budgets, are lacking in these areas. So while an end result can have flashes of brilliance created by somebody who is talented and really cares, the overall project is more often than not going to come up short.

[curtisl]

Just to add my 2 cents and the to duck out of the way of the big boys who are better at this stuff then I am.

Here are the places, taken by themselves, that I felt keep the Disney Magic alive in the AK

1. The Tree of Life - So much detail that you could never find all of the animals no matter how many times you visited.

2. The entrance to Africa - When I turned the corner into Harambe, BAMM, I was there and a continent away from the US.

3. Festival of the Lion King - Disney caliber show worth seeing over and over again.

4. Tough to be a bug - fits in perfectly with the roots of a tree. If you were a bug, where else would you put your theater? Loved the punny bug show posters.

Now if the penny pinchers had let the Imagineers keep up this quality throughout the rest of the park (like TDSeas), I would have been completely content.

[HB2K]

I'll tell you the other problem I have with DAK...although I'll probably be in the minority on this.

I don't need to be reminded that the other countries depicted in DAK are poor. I know the point of the theme was to be realistic, but there are times I look at the signage, architecture, etc and just shake my head.

There are few "photogenic" spots in DAK...whereas you can pretty much be anywhere in EPCOT, MK or MGM and take great pictures of wonderful architecture, scenery, etc.

[airlarry!]

M. Head:

Ditto. Sure seems like we'd all be happy if they had built AK the way it was supposed/rumored/planned to be, with the Tiger Raft Ride, Excavator, Australia, and BK present on or about Opening Day. And why have these trails...when they lead back to the main road? Why not have the rides at the end of the trail? An extended queue area...and more people will use the trails....

M. DK:

I do thank you for bringing up the topic and I know it is not just because you like AK. BUT YOU ARE NOT the only one who likes AK. Look at my pic. I loved the concept, and pored over some of the original drawings and rumors for what it was supposed to be. But when I got there and saw what they ended up opening up with, I could not help be disappointed. I would think less of any Disney fan that isn't disappointed with the opening day lineup of AK. And the additions have been tepid at best.

My thought? AK is like ordering a pizza from your favorite place with the works, paying full price, and getting half a pizza with two toppings. Might have to send it back...

M. Scoop:

It is just my opinion, but Pop Century, while utterly distasteful, has no bearing to this topic. It was not developed by Imagineers. It was developed by the Resort guys, the Hotelineers. The original concept for Kali was the Tiger, and it was longer, grander, and had a clearer storyline. With the proper budget they can do it right...apparently Grizzly is much better than Kali.

[DisneyKidds]

I know the point of the theme was to be realistic, but there are times I look at the signage, architecture, etc and just shake my head.
Maybe you have, but this is where I just have to ask if you have really looked and seen what is there? The coordination and themeing of the buildings is incredible. Harambe is very good, but I am more impressed by most of the other areas of the park. The intricate animal carvings on a multitude of buildings is amazing. Just for yuks, next time you are at AK wander down behind the Flame Tree BBQ. Ever been there? It is one of the most relaxing spots in all of WDW. The fountain and pond are great, the seating right on the water is great. Then look up at the architecture around you and all of the carvings, etc. Then notice that kind of detail throughout the rest of the park. I don't see how you can shake your head in any other way than to think "this is amazing".
I would think less of any Disney fan that isn't disappointed with the opening day lineup of AK. And the additions have been tepid at best.
I hope you haven't missed everything I have said about the problems the AK has. It has them. However, despite some of those problems there is still enou..............I won't say it again, because it really is a minor point, and was only a way to open up the discussion ;) (bit it isn't a hlf day park :eek: ).
I agree that AK should have been built to original plan. Half of this discussion would be moot had they done so. However, I still think the concept and theme would lack the appeal that Disney thought it would have, even with the original plan.

We were fortunate enought to visit AK before it officially opened (AP preview), as well as shortly after it opened. Know what? - we didn't spend more than a half day there. However, we were more commando back then, and we didn't have kids. Our more relaxed pace of park touring, and the addition of kids, have allowed us to appreciate the AK much more than we did in the early days. AK lacks universal appeal, it opened without things it should now have, and the additions have not been what they should - I agree.

[airlarry!]

Flametree BBQ. Best seat in the house, right down there by the water.

Ever get the feeling though that as you look out on the water that there is something missing? That usually Disney gives you something more to look at than Florida vegetation?


That's 'cause you were right. There was something that was supposed to be there. If memory serves, Beastly Kingdom would have been visible, and enticing you, right over where your field of vision was. Hints of a dragon attraction, with a battle between a good knight and the evil treasure-horder.

So when I go down there, I always get the feeling that I'm missing something. (And yes, I felt that way on our first trip right after it opened even before I knew about the missing view).

Even the name "Flame Tree BBQ" to me is an ironic reference by the Imagineers as to what the view was supposed to be. Allegedly.

[Sarangel]

apparently Grizzly is much better than Kali.Having been on both, I must say that I really prefer Kali. Grizzly River Rapids has no real storyline, no views (except cement), and no center well for dry stuff.

Kali has a rudimentery storyline (I'll grant it could have been executed better), great views of the river in AK, and someplace to keep your shoes dry. It also seems like a longer ride to me, since GRR is pretty short (though it does have a better drop).

Sarangel

[DisneyKidds]

Ever get the feeling though that as you look out on the water that there is something missing? That usually Disney gives you something more to look at than Florida vegetation?
You are absolutely right that there was most likely supposed to be something else there to look at (although I hope it wouldn't have been rides or buildings as even the view of the Florida vegitation is oh so relaxing). I can't say I ever sat there and thought something was missing, as I like to spend my time enjoying what is there, as opposed to thinking about what isn't.

A question for you. Does the fact that BK is not there to be seen when enjoying that terraced area behind Flame Tree make the detail in the architecture, decoration, and themeing any less intricate? Sure, there could be more in your field of vision, but my point still stands about the architecture, carvings, etc. It is some of the most detailed in all of WDW.

[airlarry!]

Well, M. DK, that's kind of a trick question. No matter which way I answer, one can find fault with it...I've erased my answer three times because I'm stuck.

That's like asking me if Spaceship Earth had never been built, would I have ever noticed whether or not my view from the boats was diminished. Or if I ever noticed if standing by the Kodak picture spot near the Mark Twain and the entrance to the Haunted Mansion...whether before Splash Mt was built, had I noticed something was missing there?

That's impossible to answer. Now that I know what was supposed to go there (at three different stages in AK's development and post-development, mind you), yes it does make me sad that we don't have something to look forward to at that most beautiful location. Everything you quote is why I love the place, especially the feeling it gives of being 'out of the way.' But...oh for what might have been...."Flame Tree" = "Dragon Coaster View". Does the fact that BK is not there to be seen when enjoying that terraced area behind Flame Tree make the detail in the architecture, decoration, and themeing any less intricate?

[SnackyStacky]

Oh the things you miss when you're gone for almost a week!!!!

I have two interesting points to make about Animal Kingdom from this past trip.

1.) Remember that friend I talked about? The one who kept saying "Oh! It's a zoo?" Well, she really cared nothing for Animal Kingdom. We spent two hours doing the rides, and asked her if she wanted to do any of the exhibits. She said no. She still thinks it's a glorified zoo.

2.) While waiting in line for the Backlot Tour at MGM, a cast member overheard us discussing the parks. We said something to the effect that there were four parks. He said, AND I QUOTE! "Well there ARE four, but the Animal Kingdom is kind of....eh.... don't waste too much time there...".

From a cast member.

Someone who is supposed to promote Disney.

Not trying to support any points because I haven't caught myself up with this debate, just sharing. I may need those later. ;)

[DisneyKidds]

Well, M. DK, that's kind of a trick question. No matter which way I answer, one can find fault with it...I've erased my answer three times because I'm stuck.
Bwaaahahahahahah.................................. .Now I've got you right where I want you ;).

Seriously, it is a difficult question to answer and it's relevance depends greatly on the focus of the conversation. If I were focusing this question on assessing the AK offerings overall, and what is missing, and what could be better, etc., etc. it would be hard to not consider what could have been. In the "big picture" I can see your not being able to keep from longing for a view of what should have been.

Now that i have said that, remember what I was replying to with that original comment..................
I know the point of the theme was to be realistic, but there are times I look at the signage, architecture, etc and just shake my head.

There are few "photogenic" spots in DAK...whereas you can pretty much be anywhere in EPCOT, MK or MGM and take great pictures of wonderful architecture, scenery, etc.
My particular focus here was on the intricate deatil of the achitecture and level of deatil in the themeing, and that it is just as elaborate as anywhere else on property. Focus on that small picture for a moment. Easier to asnwer now?

Yeah, combine that samll picture with the overwhelming view that could have been beyond it and AK would be even better, but AK still has the goods when it comes to detail of architecture and theme.