Avatar coming to Animal Kingdom

[lugnut33]

Oh it doesn't surprise me at all...I've replied to folks on this "Rumors and News" boards saying that their level of expectation is so high that Disney can never satisfy you no matter what they do. This just provees it...a $500 million investment into a park that most would agree needs to be expanded with an established property that obviously could make for very entertaining theme park attraction...and still people are saying "Nope, dumb idea!"

I don't care what you thought of the movie, it has a LOT of fans. The biggest fans tend to be a younger demographic than is generally hanging out on these boards though. (15-25 year old males) That demographic might not be the target audience just yet, but as they get older, they'll be bringing their families to Disney.

Another response I find interesting..."Science Fiction doesn't belong in Animal Kingdom", however, apparently FANTASY FICTION is OK...a la Beastly Kingdom. I have always found it interesting how much the general public (and media) confuses Sci-fi and fantasy. Science Fiction is by definition stories that a based on scientific possibilties. The example I've often used is that Star Trek is science fiction (for the most part - a few fantasy elements are incorporated) while Star Wars is more FANTASY - by it's very opening of "A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away".

The fact is, Avatar is called SciFi because it is set with humans going into space and their are aspects of Sci-Fi (the whole concept of Avatars for instance) it really is more Fantasy Fiction. Take the "humans invading pandora" aspect out and the world of Pandora IS Fantasy.

The irony of any argument of one versus the other is that AK already has major rides that represent BOTH concepts. Expedition Everest is a "Fantasy" ride, but DINOSAUR! is in fact a "Science Fiction" ride. (Man creates a device that allows us to go back in time to see Dinosaurs.)

OK - I'll get down from my soapbox for now...we'll clearly be arguing over this for the next 5 years.

The only thing from a negative is I hope it doesn't mean we won't be getting anything new at Epcot and DHS for the next 5 years. Those parks need some love too.

Skier Pete has suddenly become the voce of reasoning and calmness!!

 

[CurlyJo224]

For me personally I'm super excited Disney is spending money to update AK. I just HATE Avatar. It really makes me mad it is the highest grossing film of all time. Any other movie I would've been fine with. No movie I would've been fine with. Just Not Avatar!

This is where I'm at on the idea.

Expanding Animal Kingdom?

With James Cameron's Avatar.

 

[mousemoose]

Boo! Hiss! We don't want it! We don't want any! Avatar doesn't fit in Animal Kingdom and they know it! Boooo! Hisssss!!!

 

[Figment632]

Face it DAK is a failure that is why they are going in a new direction.

 

[Jblust524]

Face it DAK is a failure that is why they are going in a new direction.

Failure, in current form, yes. Doesn't mean that it can't be fixed, but definately not a great park currently.

I will say this, while people are clammoring for Australia or a bigger Africa/Asia, I do believe one thing...Disney will not expand an area taht would have more animals. Animals require a large amount of expense, and manpower to keep viable, therefore, the Avartar expansion really doesn't surprise me.

 

[nytimez]

Face it DAK is a failure that is why they are going in a new direction.

DAK is not a failure.

I agree that most people think of it as a half-day park, but that alone doesn't make it a failure.

It's somewhere in between -- not a failure, but not the level of success they were hoping for either. Avatar is an acknowledgement of the fact that they made a mistake by not including an additional land such as the envisioned Beastly Kingdom.

 

[DC7800]

DAK is not a failure.

I agree that most people think of it as a half-day park, but that alone doesn't make it a failure.

Animal Kingdom is a failure from Disney's perspective in that it failed to achieve the purpose for which it was built - namely, an extension of guest vacations. It really doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks of the place (half-day park or the greatest thing since sliced bread); The park has failed to achieve its objectives.

 

[nytimez]

Animal Kingdom is a failure from Disney's perspective in that it failed to achieve the purpose for which it was built - namely, an extension of guest vacations. It really doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks of the place (half-day park or the greatest thing since sliced bread); The park has failed to achieve its objectives.

If that was the singular goal of the park then you could make that argument -- but they also have other targets. A fourth gate allowed them to raise ticket prices both immediately, and more rapidly in the years since.

It also increased overall capacity of the parks, allowing them to build more resorts to hold more people at once -- so even if the average trip length did not in increase, the number of visitors to Walt Disney World did. For example, you can't build and fill the largest hotel in Florida -- Pop Century -- without adding significant capacity to the theme parks.

I won't argue that Animal Kingdom has been a success. That's way overselling it. But I think to dismiss it as a failure is selling it short.

 

[skier_pete]

Skier Pete has suddenly become the voce of reasoning and calmness!!

Hey, I've always been the voice of reason! (Reasoning?)

Calmness...now maybe not.

Oh - and I agree with NYTimes (Again?). To call AK a failure seems pretty ridiculous. What standard are we using here?

2009 Annual Attendance:
MK 17.2 Million
Epcot 11.0 Million
DHS 9.7 Million
AK 9.6 Million
Total: 47.5 Million

So by the standard of annual attendance, if AK is a failure, then Epcot and DHS are both failures as well. (Epcot has much more to offer and only gets 10 % more attendance?) AK accounts for 20 % of attendance-days. Not bad for a park that has the shortest hours of any of the parks and actually only has SIX rides. (Seven if you count the train to RPW.)

Let's go back to 1997 - the year before AK opened:
1997 Annual Attendance:
MK 17.1 Million
Epcot 11.0 Million
DHS 10.4 Million
Total: 38.5 Million

So, Park days are up 9 MILLION people in 13 years or 23 %. Epcot and MK are flat during that time, and DHS is slightly (7 %) down. Looks like a complete disaster to me. I should also point out that during that time we've seen almost no additional expansion within the other parks except a new ride here or there.

Oh, but shorter term it was failure you say?
1999 Annual Attendance (first year AK was open the entire year):
MK 15.2 Million
Epcot 10.1 Million
DHS 8.7 Million
AK 8.6 Million
Total: 42.6 Million

Total guest attendance went up 11 % from '97 to '99. I suppose in a perfect world you would want to see guests spending a quarter of their time at the new park - but to say anyone had that expectation when AK opened would be ludicrous. Best realistic hope would be on the average 7 day vacation someone would spend an extra day at a Disney Park - a 14 % increase, right? And they got 11%.

So - what's the standard of failure. Please define for me.

There I go using reasoning again.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Two things:

first, Pete...you're just quoting numbers. In this case the numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. They could put a pile of steaming rhino dung in the middle of parking lot and get attendance numbers.

Thats by design. They built a slew of hotel rooms and a maze of shops and restaurants over 35 years prior to the opening of animal kingdom specifically to guarantee the attendance at their ticketed sites. Magical Express....disney dining...park hoppers...all for the same goal.

The goal is for you to dump all your discretionary cash into disney shops on disney merchandise...that is obvious. But it's not the main point here.

While i don't know if you can call AK a "failure"...it clearly has led to more dilution and spreading out of the crowds than really addition.

People don't book trips to WDW for AK in large numbers...probably in very small numbers, to be exact. And the average stay (if i remember the last time i saw the numbers) hasn't really increased since animal kingdom...maybe a day...not a statistical success for disney.

Rmember that with parkhoppers...those statistics are highly subjective. 3 hours at AK and then a trip to EPCOT for the average attendee isn't proving a success for AK...they woulda just gone to EPCOT anyway.

I don't go as far to label it a fail on all fronts...but it is in some key ones.

The fact is that without major reinvestment it will stagnate and not be a draw...it probably already has in the important measureables. So here in lies your avatar. The MK or EPCOT can be "tweaked" well into the future on their pre-existing foundations...i don't think that holds for AK. A big reason is what Timez said: exotic, non-native animals are ridiculously expensive...and they eat and require care and medical attention everyday. There's not a "low occ" season where disney can cut costs.

Second...i do think that it has failed to provide core business that it was intended to. MGM was a rush park that was small scale...they seemed to have accepted that at the start.
AK was not to be so...it is the largest park and was designed with a resort area around it. It was meant to be the third leg of the tripod at WDW. IT had over 8000 on property rooms already open in the area...a water park was constructed largely because of it....another 7000 (DAK lodge and Pop) rooms were already on the docket as part of the plan. One can argue that AK figured into part of the process of wide world of sports.
It had a "budget" of 800 million bucks...but we all can fairly easily understand that the numbers are massaged and that the initial construction cost was closer to the internet reported "insider number" (guinness book actually put this figure in their record books) of around 1.2 billion in initial construction cost. Which means with the subsequent additions they are well over 1.5 billion of construction at this point.
But Eisner got overzealous...they had nature/ animal production coming in the lion king, pocahontas, tarzan, and dinosaur in the works....and they all subsequently declined in profit, merchandise tie-ins, and themepark applications as the park progressed and opened. He kinda whiffed. And we have our colorful friend joe rhode spending a billion on plants - while they had two servicable attractions and the river to nowhere when they opened.
The budget was cut...the schedule was rushed...all the corners that would have made it a real "disney" quality park were shaved off...
And it was a collective whiff.

In retrospect...they really did go off the path.

But hey, bad at opening is acceptible at disney after Euro...it has been so on every park except tokyo disney sea...where they didn't finance.

But then it sat...and they threw up carnie rides....and the afforementioned Mr. Rhode went nuts over what amounts to a pedestrian rollercoaster behind a fake mountan that doesn't even work...and it tied up what has turned out to be NINE YEARS of the capital expense budget.

So yeah...maybe not an abject failure...but very close to the fine line that your could make a case thats it is an overall failure...using certain metrics

 

[Killer Fish]

Pete I am with you....to call AK a failure is ridiculous.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Pete I am with you....to call AK a failure is ridiculous.

Ok...I'm not dismissing your stance - but can you take a second and elaborate?

I'm interested...but you can't just use attendance without coming up with a way to account for park hopping

 

[Killer Fish]

Ok...I'm not dismissing your stance - but can you take a second and elaborate?

I'm interested...but you can't just use attendance without coming up with a way to account for park hopping

I am going to go with the fact that it is not completely redone like DCA...that is a failure in my opinion.

Just because it does not fill Pop century does not make it a failure...

They did something different and I really don't understand why I can't use attendance....if nothing else it fills up AKL with premium room rates.

 

[Figment632]

I can't believe I'm saying this but DAK is a failure for two reasons.

1. It has too much theming!!!!!! Yes it's a great looking park there is just not much to do. I'm down to two hours per trip in DAK! There is no re rideability and really not much to do. I do KS, FOW, and Dino and I'm out!

How many times can I do the trails?? Lion King and Nemo were good but I only neede to see the once.

Don't get me started on EE that ride is all theme and no coaster! The Yeti in A mode is what made it special. I won't ride EE again till it's fixed!

DAK closes ad early as 5:00 PM sometimes show me another Disney park that does! Show me another park that got rid of night extra magic hours. Why did they do that?? Because there is nothing to freaking do! The animals need rest do that leaves three shows, KRR, and Dinoland!!!!

2. Disney Failed DAK!!!!! It's Disneys fault it failed they slashed the budget to nothing!! Instead of Beastly Kingdom, The E-ticket Wooden coaster for Dinoland, the outdoor scene for Dino, and the Dino river cruise we got Chester and Hester!

DAK failed Avatar will fix that!

 

[Timmy Boy]

So, not sure if this has been discussed or not, but James Cameron did an interview and stated that the area would be "12 acres of Pandora."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=086tOrvi9UE

Now, when Potter was announced in 2007, it was claimed to have 20 acres worth of immersive environment.

(Go to 40 seconds) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3u-s51KDQY

Anyone else think this may be a bit small? Even now, people complain about Potter's small size.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I am going to go with the fact that it is not completely redone like DCA...that is a failure in my opinion.

Just because it does not fill Pop century does not make it a failure...

They did something different and I really don't understand why I can't use attendance....if nothing else it fills up AKL with premium room rates.

Ok...but setting the standards as "not as bad as DCA" is pretty much putting the bar on the floor, isn't it?

And AK failed to sell AkL...so much so that about 25% of the original rooms were converted to DVC...Disney is not in the practice of converting rooms that fetch 300 a night into timeshares...quite the opposite, in fact

 

[skier_pete]

Ok...I'm not dismissing your stance - but can you take a second and elaborate?

I'm interested...but you can't just use attendance without coming up with a way to account for park hopping

I'm sorry, the only numbers I can obtain are attendance figures. If that doesn't define "Success" vs "Failure" for you, I can't argue anyone.

I can't believe I'm saying this but DAK is a failure for two reasons.

1. It has too much theming!!!!!! Yes it's a great looking park there is just not much to do. I'm down to two hours per trip in DAK! There is no re rideability and really not much to do. I do KS, FOW, and Dino and I'm out!

How many times can I do the trails?? Lion King and Nemo were good but I only neede to see the once.

Don't get me started on EE that ride is all theme and no coaster! The Yeti in A mode is what made it special. I won't ride EE again till it's fixed!

DAK closes ad early as 5:00 PM sometimes show me another Disney park that does! Show me another park that got rid of night extra magic hours. Why did they do that?? Because there is nothing to freaking do! The animals need rest do that leaves three shows, KRR, and Dinoland!!!!

2. Disney Failed DAK!!!!! It's Disneys fault it failed they slashed the budget to nothing!! Instead of Beastly Kingdom, The E-ticket Wooden coaster for Dinoland, the outdoor scene for Dino, and the Dino river cruise we got Chester and Hester!

DAK failed Avatar will fix that!

You're argument for failure is mostly "I don't like it!" I guess I should claim success because our family loves this park. We spend two days there each trip. It's also the only park we actually BUY merchandise. You get tired of the trails - we don't. I agree with Dinoland being a hot mess (and I include the Dinosaur ride in that, because I think that ride is a waste of time) but we thoroughly enjoy every bit of the rest of that park.

So for us its a total success. For you, total failure. Which is it? Somewhere in between. There are plenty of people that fall on both sides of the argument. Lockoutlogic claims it a failure because it was supposed to appeal to everyone and it doesn't. Sorry, that doesn't make it a failure either. I know people who's least favorite park is Magic Kingdom. Doesn't make that a waste of space.

You call EE a failure because the Yeti doesn't work, and I agree from a design point, that's a failure. But 95 % of the people on that ride don't notice, and 99 % don't care. (Admittedly that's a guess, but almost everyone I've ever talked to AT Disney World - the casual Disney fans - don't even notice the Yeti isn't working.) Go ahead and do that poll yourself. Next time your there, Ask 100 people coming off the ride if (a) they liked the ride and (b) they noticed the Yeti was malfunctioning. Bring the results to me and argue that's a failure to Disney. It's one of the top draws for the park. And honestly, if Disney thought it was a failure, they'd shut it down and fix it.

Perhaps we're defining failure in different ways. You are looking at what appears a failure to you. I am looking at the Disney picture - what things don't work to the point that people don't use them. The Imagination Pavilion is a failure. Never a wait. Modified the ride and no one rides it. No sponsor. THAT'S a failure. AK - definitely not.

 

[Figment632]

Nobody adressed the my point of the park closing before it's dark and the canceling of EMH.

Trust me Disney will not say DAK is a failure but they are very unhappy with it. I have a friend that heads up the survey department for WDW. He polled guests on DAK 40% of them regard to DAk as the Zoo.

Like I said Disney did this to themselves the same way the ruined SSE earth by being cheap!

DAK is the same everywhere you go. Sure the lands look different but there is no difference from Asia and Africa it's the same.

If DAK was considered a success Avatar would be going to DHS or EC. Theme parks can fail even Disney parks.

MGM Studios failed at first because they tried to make it a working studio and there where two rides and nothing but shows/tours. Hence the reason Sunset BLVD was built.

DCA and WDS complete failures.

DAK is no where near not even close to as bad as those but it's original theme has failed. All theme and no attractions dies not work. In that same survey 89% of people said there is not enough to do at DAK. 43% had no desire to return on their next trip.

You don't have to believe the numbers I said and it was just one survey. Also 93% said how beautiful the park is.

Again DAK is the vest themed park in WDW there just us not much to do. I'm hoping Avatar adds another 3 hours to my experience.

 

[Figment632]

40% referee to DAK as the Zoo
89% said there is not enough to do at DAK
43% said they had no desire to return on their next trip.
93% where impressed by the theming
98% where asked about if they had any issues with EE and said no
90% Said they prefer the other parks
37% thought the park was too big
78% were confused by centralized FP
56% were displeased with the TS
85% were happy with then QS
79% wanted more water attractions
63% wanted transportation through out the park

The rest of the stats from the survey took me awhile fir him to send me the rest.

 

[Oglet]

I work in all 4 parks although I spend the majority of my time in DAK and I have noticed something

I get very few people holding a map and walking up to me while at DHS, MK or Epcot. Guests at DAK seem genuinely confused. Many guests simply have no idea where on a map they are or how to get to where they need to be.

Also I believe many people go into DAK and probably miss half of what they park has to offer. Unlike the 3 other parks things are not out there in your face when you walk around a corner, you really need to explore and look for specific things.

Anyone remember the old boat ride at DAK? how quickly that failed. It's a shame because they could have done so much with it.