Just got back and heard a couple of interesting rumors from CMs

[KNWVIKING]

I don't think Disney needs to go after the IOA crowd. They'll come back to Disney on their own once they grow up and have kids of their own. Besides, building a thrill park isn't going to keep them at Disney, they are still going to visit US/IOA anyway.

 

[ladysoleil]

I don't think Disney needs to go after the IOA crowd. They'll come back to Disney on their own once they grow up and have kids of their own. Besides, building a thrill park isn't going to keep them at Disney, they are still going to visit US/IOA anyway.

Have to agree with you there. As much as I love Disney, US/IOA is always a big part of our vacation plans when we're in Orlando. It's also much more affordable. Disney is certainly its own thing, but Universal also fills a niche that Disney doesn't, and neither one of them seem to be hurting for money.

 

[eeyore0062]

I have to agree with Chuck. There is plenty of room for expansion of Disney MGM and Animal Kingdom... even the addition of a land that is only thrill rides in Animal Kingdom as has been proposed before. They still haven't drawn in the mythical beast aspect (well maybe the Yeti featured in Expedition Everest), so perhaps a Mythical beast thrill section could fill that purpose. It could back up on the area where Expedition Everest is and tie everything together.

As for Disney MGM, I think that it needs some more attractions and shows. JMHO!

 

[MEM]

It almost seems that a Sea World type park with trained/captive sea creatures (mammals such as dolphins and whales) would be in direct contrast to the "conservation" theme they do at AK. But I do think that AK could be expanded to include more sea life educational shows and exhibits with fish.

A separate thrill park may be good, but expensive to build...still a possibility.

But I really would like to se them do more with the Studios and AK before breaking ground on a new park.

Hmmmm...I believe SeaWorld considers what they do to be "conservation" also. Please keep in mind that the animals at AK are captive and "trained" to a considerable degree, too. Personally, since SeaWorld does it so well, I cannot imagine the Disney Co. even bothering to compete with them. JMHO.

 

[Planogirl]

One of SeaWorld's primary roles is aiding injured or trapped sea animals and making sure that they are released to the wild again if they can be. The animals currently in shows and on display are "ambassadors" if you will and make the money that SeaWorld needs to be involved in conservation and animal rescue. At least that is how I understand it.

 

[KNWVIKING]

I thought SW's primary role was to serve as a grand enterance to the beer tasting pavilion.

 

[JonJehrio]

I think building a "thrill ride" park would be a waste of money. Within the next year they will already have a few thrill rides at each of their parks, (Everest, Rockin Roller Coaster, Mission Space, etc...) Thrill rides are big ticket items and if they built a theme park just with thrill rides, it would be quite a financial hit, especially in the future when they wanted to expand. They should instead expand MK with a Thrill ride area and call it Villian land, or something more creative. I definately think WDW needs to be adding something new each year to give people a reason to keep coming back. There is alot they can do at each park to expand. WDW is a perfect size another park might be overwhelming and price them out of business.

 

[rocketriter]

I agree that WDW already has enough parks, at least for this generation. Animal Kingdom has a long way to go before it's finished, and MGM is still less than full-sized (besides which, an alien UFO shaped like a hat landed in the central square, blocking the beautiful view of the Chinese theatre).

 

[Planogirl]

I thought SW's primary role was to serve as a grand enterance to the beer tasting pavilion.

That too.

 

[Disney-Junkie]

I never understood why AK doesn't have more sea animals like Sea World. Things like sharks, sting rays, whales and dolphins. You can't replace Shamu but the others AK could.

Is there a reason they don't?

 

[MrsKreamer]

probably b/c it's only in its first or second phase. They will probably add more to it down the road.

WDW is a lot of land that guests don't see, or don't know it belongs to WDW. They have plenty of room for another theme park. I do agree that MGM and AK should be added to before they build another park. The thing is, the way MGM is designed, there really isn't anywhere to expand it. They can definatly add to AK, and I believe they plan to.JMO

 

[Brwhite]

I have to agree, I think MGM still needs a little something, and they had better do something for AK. EE is a good start, and they've got a decent beginning, but they have yet to give it that Disney Magic.
I think another park would be an awesome idea, but I don't think a "Thrills Park" is the way to go. The thrill rides are a part of each park. Perhaps a Medival land, Or a park that traveled through history. It could be a tie in with POP. THey could take the themes backwards in time at the Resort. You could have the characters as the Three Cabelleros, Three Musketeers, and so on.
Just my thoughts

 

[MrsKreamer]

I have to agree, I think MGM still needs a little something, and they had better do something for AK. EE is a good start, and they've got a decent beginning, but they have yet to give it that Disney Magic.
I think another park would be an awesome idea, but I don't think a "Thrills Park" is the way to go. The thrill rides are a part of each park. Perhaps a Medival land, Or a park that traveled through history. It could be a tie in with POP. THey could take the themes backwards in time at the Resort. You could have the characters as the Three Cabelleros, Three Musketeers, and so on.
Just my thoughts

Not to mention that a history park would be right up Walt's alley!

 

[Brwhite]

They could make the Castle from Agribah (Aladdin) as the centerpiece

Edit: and no, the Aladdin Reference is not because of my avatar.

 

[CatLady]

I never understood why AK doesn't have more sea animals like Sea World. Things like sharks, sting rays, whales and dolphins. You can't replace Shamu but the others AK could.

Is there a reason they don't?

Cost, I suspect. While support for land animals is expensive (food, shelter, etc.), the amount of infrastructure and support needed for large marine creatures is a lot higher, since you're also having to maintain their environment through filtration, regulation of the salt water mix, etc. Disney does it on one scale at Epcot with the Living Seas, so they know what it costs. On a per-animal basis, the cost of upkeep is a lot higher. Much more profitable sticking primaily to animals that can live in less expensive habitats.

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

I'd rather see disney avoid a park about American history. It would just be too tough to even come close to doing it right. Instead maybe add a North or South America section to AK.

I'd also like Disney to avoid copying IOA bad enough they already copied Universal and Busch Gardens. Time to do something unique.

 

[G00fyDad]

...bad enough they already copied Universal ...

Actually Disney had already started working on MGM before Universal even started being built. Lots of people think that MGM was Disney's answer to Universal. That's just not the case. It was never meant to be another Universal.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Actually Disney had already started working on MGM before Universal even started being built. Lots of people think that MGM was Disney's answer to Universal. That's just not the case. It was never meant to be another Universal.

I'll avoid the debate about whether the Disney-MGM Studios theme park was a pre-emptive strike against Universal Studios Florida, or whether Disney-MGM was already in the works and would gave been built regardless of Universal.

However, Disney-MGM Studios theme park was significantly influenced by Universal Studios Hollywood. Disney liberally borrowed creative ideas - tram tour, stunt show, walking tour, show similar to Superstar Television, and more -- from its California competitor. There really can't be any debate there.

 

[G00fyDad]

I'll avoid the debate about whether the Disney-MGM Studios theme park was a pre-emptive strike against Universal Studios Florida, or whether Disney-MGM was already in the works and would gave been built regardless of Universal.

However, Disney-MGM Studios theme park was significantly influenced by Universal Studios Hollywood. Disney liberally borrowed creative ideas - tram tour, stunt show, walking tour, show similar to Superstar Television, and more -- from its California competitor. There really can't be any debate there.

Point taken. I just meant that MGM was in production before Universal came to Florida. (Or maybe Eisner caught wind of a "new thrill park" and then started the planning. )

 

[mitros]

The AK needs to add that Beastly Kingdom that the Imagineers originally had planned for the park. Sorry if someone already mentioned this, I did not read all of the posts.