For those that say "Disney doesn't spend money on the parks"

[Disco]

How bad is AK?

I ask because if you look at the amount spent on AK compared to DCA it is almost directly propotional to the visits.

Most of the bad reviews of DCA are because it is compared to DL, the best domestic park that is a hundred yards away. If it wasn't compared to DL people may of said it certainly seems amazing and busy compared to Magic Mountain, (AKA wallyworld), or Knotts.

Next April when we see the 2010 attendance it may have the biggest jump for a Disney park because World of Color is very popular and I don't desire to think about the crowds Carsland will build.

Actually AK is my favorite park. However, when it was first built I would say that it was around third place. They've added quite a bit to it since it opened so it came up in my ratings.
I've been to them all but I would say CA is the worst with DS (currently) being second. CA was gawd awful when it was first built and the improvements added helped but it is still last in my mind.
AK is just a very relaxing visit. You can just stroll around and look at the animals. The themeing throughout the park is just superb and very immersive to the African and Asian continents.
CA is nice but they broke a Disney cardinal law and used local theming. If AK had a safari ride to see alligators and cranes; if it had a tour of an OJ factory; if the theming was based on Miami, I would be pissed I paid money to see stuff I see everyday.
When the DCA refurbish is done it'll probably pull ahead of DS and maybe even Epcot.

 

[eliza61]

How bad is AK?

I ask because if you look at the amount spent on AK compared to DCA it is almost directly propotional to the visits.

Most of the bad reviews of DCA are because it is compared to DL, the best domestic park that is a hundred yards away. If it wasn't compared to DL people may of said it certainly seems amazing and busy compared to Magic Mountain, (AKA wallyworld), or Knotts.

Next April when we see the 2010 attendance it may have the biggest jump for a Disney park because World of Color is very popular and I don't desire to think about the crowds Carsland will build.

I don't think AK is actually bad it's just a very different experience than the other parks so it gets a bad rep.
Yeti has never ever worked right and imo that's a dismal failure, I really don't care if first timers noticed or not, maybe for me it's the simple fact that in today's technology a major player like disney can't get a stupid animatron prop to work , is unacceptable. I work in medical research though, we expect perfection.

Also AK has a horrible layout. you're funneled into these skinny chutes full of vegatation, then you can get easily "lost" walking around to get from point a- point B.
Last year there were a lot of complaints about mechanical failure. Generally it is the least liked of all 4 at orlando.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Disagree 100% on Mission:Space. Horizons was a much better overall attraction and should never have received the fate that it did. It defined EPCOT.

agree wholeheartedly...

its not that mission space isn't a decent thrill or that i personally don't like it...i actually like it alot.

it's just that the ride is overdesigned for delivering an amusement type thrill....military grade gravity simulator? that's a wee bit over the top.

so they took away a family type informational slow ride - which is what imagineering has always done best - and replaced it with a thrill that is really a simulator (disney's fascination with simulators is bordering on ridiculous) that had to be halved because it tended to cause coronaries in the paying customers.


horizon was what it was: a disney-esque optimistic diorama of what might be coming....built for a much simpler time when a child's (and an adult's) imagination provided the future and the motivation to invent and find new ways and things....

now we google everything. my personal theory is that it will show as a detrimate to who we are in the future. we have lost our respect for the power of information and our drive to WORK to obtain it. but that's for another day

so i'm in the NO column on mission space...its not bad...but it was not a step in the right direction...as with test track

 

[DC7800]

agree wholeheartedly...

its not that mission space isn't a decent thrill or that i personally don't like it...i actually like it alot.

it's just that the ride is overdesigned for delivering an amusement type thrill....military grade gravity simulator? that's a wee bit over the top.

so they took away a family type informational slow ride - which is what imagineering has always done best - and replaced it with a thrill that is really a simulator (disney's fascination with simulators is bordering on ridiculous) that had to be halved because it tended to cause coronaries in the paying customers.


horizon was what it was: a disney-esque optimistic diorama of what might be coming....built for a much simpler time when a child's (and an adult's) imagination provided the future and the motivation to invent and find new ways and things....

now we google everything. my personal theory is that it will show as a detrimate to who we are in the future. we have lost our respect for the power of information and our drive to WORK to obtain it. but that's for another day

so i'm in the NO column on mission space...its not bad...but it was not a step in the right direction...as with test track

Yes, absolutely correct.

Very well said. Mission: Puke-A-Twirl doesn't belong in Epcot, any more than Space Mountain belongs in Frontierland.

 

[nytimez]

Yes, absolutely correct.

Very well said. Mission: Puke-A-Twirl doesn't belong in Epcot, any more than Space Mountain belongs in Frontierland.

Completely disagree. Regardless of how you feel about the attraction, science and exploration is at its heart, as well as the imagined future of space travel. I can't think of a better place for it than "Future World"

 

[skiingfast]

Completely disagree. Regardless of how you feel about the attraction, science and exploration is at its heart, as well as the imagined future of space travel. I can't think of a better place for it than "Future World"

Ok, I can think of a better place for MS, square on top of stitch's great escape.

 

[skier_pete]

How bad is AK?

Actually AK is my favorite park. However, when it was first built I would say that it was around third place. They've added quite a bit to it since it opened so it came up in my ratings.

Also AK has a horrible layout. you're funneled into these skinny chutes full of vegatation, then you can get easily "lost" walking around to get from point a- point B.
Last year there were a lot of complaints about mechanical failure. Generally it is the least liked of all 4 at orlando.

There are lots and lots of people that love AK, though many that hate it. I (and my whole family) are in the love group. I think it is far and away the best "themed" park of the 4. The "horrible" layout is completely intentional, and we can argue whether making a theme that is not ideal for the guest experience is bad planning or not (which Universal chose also to do with Hogsmeade), but the layout in and of itself is beautifully designed. The attention to detail at AK is amazing. This is not a popular park because it is not easy...it requires exploring, asking questions of the CM, and taking your time...not something that the average guest at a theme park is used to doing. I think it's terribly sad that some think AK is a "failure" because of this. It is too bad that Beastly kingdom never got built, but the result of that was we got Festival of the Lion King instead, which is a must do for us.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Completely disagree. Regardless of how you feel about the attraction, science and exploration is at its heart, as well as the imagined future of space travel. I can't think of a better place for it than "Future World"

yes, i concede your point on space exploration. but what is mission: space exactly?

its an amusement ride plain and simple....it isn't about information or probing curiosity...

it's looking at a tv monitor while your face gets sucked back into your seat. it's basically star tours on steroids. even the "emergency landing" theatrical sequence diminishes any eductional value it might have. A movie with gravity...passive brain activity.

My contention is that horizons stimulated your brain a little more and stayed with you much longer than MS. Which is the entire point of EPCOT. To stimulate.

Watching the tube and trying to keep your stomach in check isn't EPCOT...in my opinion. I realize that you have to have the thrills...but i would be for adding them to the showcase much more than demolishing the original edu-tainment pavilions for them.

Remember when they wanted to gut Spaceship Earth and put a Vekoma pukacoaster in it? ...good god

 

[eliza61]

There are lots and lots of people that love AK, though many that hate it. I (and my whole family) are in the love group. I think it is far and away the best "themed" park of the 4. The "horrible" layout is completely intentional, and we can argue whether making a theme that is not ideal for the guest experience is bad planning or not (which Universal chose also to do with Hogsmeade), but the layout in and of itself is beautifully designed. The attention to detail at AK is amazing. This is not a popular park because it is not easy...it requires exploring, asking questions of the CM, and taking your time...not something that the average guest at a theme park is used to doing. I think it's terribly sad that some think AK is a "failure" because of this. It is too bad that Beastly kingdom never got built, but the result of that was we got Festival of the Lion King instead, which is a must do for us.

why? I mean if you've got 4 parks, some one has to end up in last place. my family and I are firmly in the "like" catagory. We always go because we have ap's and generally stay anywhere from 7-10 days but it's not a park that holds our interest longer than a couple of hours.

Don't think "beautiful" is how I would describe the layout but you are absolutely right, I don't go to an amusement park to have to "figure out" how to get around. Pretty much save that for museums and such.

Some ask why ak was not as popular as the other parks and I threw out various reasons and common complaints heard about the parks.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

why? I mean if you've got 4 parks, some one has to end up in last place. my family and I are firmly in the "like" catagory. We always go because we have ap's and generally stay anywhere from 7-10 days but it's not a park that holds our interest longer than a couple of hours.

Don't think "beautiful" is how I would describe the layout but you are absolutely right, I don't go to an amusement park to have to "figure out" how to get around. Pretty much save that for museums and such.

Some ask why ak was not as popular as the other parks and I threw out various reasons and common complaints heard about the parks.

if somebody gave me the choice to either:

A. Skip EPCOT for one year
B. Skip Animal Kingdom for 10 years


I'd choose B in a millesecond


And i am a big fan of AK....the potential of AK. The concept is still very much underdeveloped and needs a serious committment to the tune of one of these billion dollar donations to Cali Adventure or the Magic Kingdom.

Why would they do that? Because it's the DISNEY thing to do. And i personally don't care if it causes a 50 cent drop in my stock prices. They started a park based on the environment, conservation, and humans co-habitation with the other millions of species on this planet who have as much (or realistically...more) right to be on this planet. It could be their crowning, defining achievement in terms of parks. But they have to wanna do it.

A couple of lion king or nemo shows and a ride through safari doesn't cut it. DO BETTER!!!!

 

[Tekneek]

Again, I see your overall points. But Epcot isn't the place to make it, IMO.

The problem with Epcot is the loss of mission/focus, which unfortunately does mean that most of the updates have pushed it further away from where it is supposed to be.

 

[Tekneek]

I would think that a logical take would be that you have to include the billion dollar band-aid to California Adventure as a resounding negative....

Indeed. We should laud Disney for spending money to fix a problem they created themselves? I can see the point in focusing on the positive, but let's not forget how they got themselves in this spot.

 

[Tekneek]

And i am a big fan of AK....the potential of AK. The concept is still very much underdeveloped and needs a serious committment to the tune of one of these billion dollar donations to Cali Adventure or the Magic Kingdom.

I agree completely. I do feel the park is underrated by many and that there are lots of hidden gems there for those who are willing to take the time to find them. That being said, they should really finish the park. Instead, they are going around building new DVC destinations, building more Disneyland replica parks, building more cruise ships, etc. If they really finished out AK, and I mean doing it right, it would pay off for generations. It requires a vision that extends far beyond next quarter, beyond next year, beyond that next CEO employment contract, etc. Not many executives, board members, and shareholders are willing to be a part of a fantastic future when they can instead opt for a short term gain (relatively speaking, not necessarily referring to short term gain as defined by the tax code).