The next Disney theme park

[mommyceratops]

Ok I am sure this has been discussed but while we were in Disney I was talking to a CM and I made the comment that Disney needs a new park to help disburse crowds.

She said they have one in the works but aren't telling anyone what it is.

Anyone know anything or want to guess?

 

[DannyDisneyFreak]

I don't think they will be another park at WDW anytime soon, 4 parks as it is, with 2 water parks, DisneyQuest, Pleasure Island, & Downtown Disney it makes it impossible to experience everything in under a week. The better Idea would to expand AK, open the Beastly Kingdom as originally planned or another section, add a couple more thrill rides, keep it open later and that would help disburse crowds.
Our ME bus driver on our return trip to the airport said that a fifth park was in the works and it would be a more of of thrill ride park to compete with IoA. I don't give this much credibility though, CM rumors are just that, rumors. I think a park with more thrill rides would be awesome though!

 

[MJMcBride]

They must be under orders to leak these rumors or else it brings them great joy. Don't buy any of it. As far back as 1998, CM told my wife and I that they were working on a sports themed park next to the Sports complex.

The recent interviews with Disney execs indicate they want to flush out existing parks, mostly DAK. The single day sales of MGM and DAK are much lower than DMK and Epcot. Mostly, because there is less to do and in the case of DAK, a lot less. I would think you'll see a number of smaller attractions at the Studios and DAK to flesh these parks out more and create more single day sales. The headliners create the buzz but the kids rides, dark rides etc keep them there for a day.

 

[dbm20th]

Eventually there will be another park added. That you can be sure of, and I would guess DisneySea would be it. That park looks really amazing and considering how easy it is to create lakes and such in Florida it makes sense, but this is years off. Maybe as many as ten.

Remember this when discussing improvements to parks, next year...if my numbers are correct, is EPCOT's 25th Anniversary. Something big will likely be added for that.

MGM is also VERY close to being a great one day park. They have 2 terrific E-tickets, plus some great shows. They need some more rides for the younger audince. Monsters Inc. is logical and seems likely.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

Eventually there will be another park added. That you can be sure of, and I would guess DisneySea would be it. That park looks really amazing and considering how easy it is to create lakes and such in Florida it makes sense, but this is years off. Maybe as many as ten.

Remember this when discussing improvements to parks, next year...if my numbers are correct, is EPCOT's 25th Anniversary. Something big will likely be added for that.

MGM is also VERY close to being a great one day park. They have 2 terrific E-tickets, plus some great shows. They need some more rides for the younger audince. Monsters Inc. is logical and seems likely.

I agree with the prospect of DisneySea, but then why rebuild the whole Living Seas thing...at EPCOT, nonetheless! I've always wondered why they put Living Seas back at EPCOT when it should have been moved to AK with the other animals.

I don't understand a thrill ride park, though. Are they going to move all the roller-coasters from the other parks there? It also splits off a very specific targeted audience to drain away from the other parks. It might sound good on paper, but in actuality what keeps the majority of people around are the small atttractions and little things to do and see, not how long you can keep people standing in line. E-tickets might draw people, but it's the A, B, C, & D attractions that keep them there.

Ergo, I disagree with the assessment that MGM is "VERY close to being a great one day park." Maybe for one small segment of visitors but that doesn't keep the majority of people around for a day. The reason MK is a 2- or 3-day park for the majority of people is that while it has about 4 days worth of attractions to see, it gives enough people 2 or 3-days worth of attractions they like. For either MGM or AK to even be a one-day park for most people, Disney will have to overbuild both with 2-days worth of attractions...they're maybe 2/3's the way there at MGM, but they aren't even close at AK.

-R

 

[2Xited4Disney]

Ak can be a 1 day park if you don't mind taking it EXTREMELY slow...

On our last trip I tried to see everything there is at DAK. We stayed at Rafiki's Planet Watch (or whatever it is called) for a long time... we watched several animal exhibits. we even watch some animal surgeries. We made sure we took everything extremely slow, We also chose not to step foot into the carnival disgrace.. Of course this was also in August when the park closes at 5. It is possible, to spend a full day, but many people (including myself on the next trip) aren't willing to closely examine everything

In saying that I am not suggesting DAK is even close to the glory of any of the other parks.. I am just stating my opinion

 

[peter11435]

I agree with the prospect of DisneySea, but then why rebuild the whole Living Seas thing...at EPCOT, nonetheless! I've always wondered why they put Living Seas back at EPCOT when it should have been moved to AK with the other animals.

DisneySeas has very little (read: absolutly nothing) to do with aquatic animals. Additionaly they have not rebuilt nor did they put the living seas back at Epcot. It was never gone, they are simply making some changes to the pavillion.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

DisneySeas has very little (read: absolutly nothing) to do with aquatic animals. Additionaly they have not rebuilt nor did they put the living seas back at Epcot. It was never gone, they are simply making some changes to the pavillion.

Well DisneySeas is about maritime, the ocean, water, or something to that tune, isn't it? Putting Living Seas there would still make more sense then leaving it in the Future World at EPCOT; or does Disney consider it a different "country" and part of the World Showcase? But it still makes the most sense at AK, IMHO!

Wasn't it closed for awhile during the rehab and then reopened; I thought they had moved the fish out while they were redoing the pavilion. If not, I definitely stand corrected; still...short-sighted of Disney not to have moved it to the AK; if they can remove the 20K Lagoon at MK and fill it in, they definitely have the capability to move a simple aquarium!

-R

 

[dbm20th]

Well DisneySeas is about maritime, the ocean, water, or something to that tune, isn't it?
-R

Find the DisneySea website and you'll know what it is about. It has virtually nothing to do with anything that would be appropriate for AK or EPCOT. Living Seas would be totally out of place, however something like 20K would be more like it.

Living Seas moved to Animal Kingdom? What for? What would they gain by doing that?

 

[Lord Fantasius]

Find the DisneySea website and you'll know what it is about. It has virtually nothing to do with anything that would be appropriate for AK or EPCOT. Living Seas would be totally out of place, however something like 20K would be more like it.

Living Seas moved to Animal Kingdom? What for? What would they gain by doing that?

Actually I did; appears to be a more intimate version of World Showcase, using cultures instead of countries.

According to the website, the "Aquasphere" out front is meant to symbolize "Our Mother Earth, the Water Planet...." So what better way to show off the creatures of this Water Planet than the Living Seas? O.k., maybe stretching it abit, but the reasoning behind moving LS to AK was that then you would be representing all the species/genus/whatever of the animal kingdom, and not just the land and air-borne variants. In retrospect, really don't see how DisneySeas would be an added benefit to WDW since the concept so closely parallels EPCOT.

Also, since environmentalism/conservation is overshadowing resourcing/exploitation of the seas, the theme of Living Seas would fit much better in with AK than Future World, which was originally designed to show man's advanced technological utilization of resources.

-R

 

[2Xited4Disney]

Actually I did; appears to be a more intimate version of World Showcase, using cultures instead of countries.

I am not trying to argue with you but I wouldn't use the world "cultures".

Tokyo Disneysea offers "Ports" symbolizing random things they really have very things in common


American waterfront= Cape Cod (pretty much
Mermaid Lagoon= Mermaid playground
Port Discovery= a weather LEARNING enviornment
Mysterious Island= Jules Verne 20,000 leagues
Meditterianian Coast line= Venice
Lost River= Latin America
Arabian Coast= Arabian Coast


I can understand the American, Meditterianian, Lost River, and Arabian being cultures but primarily they are based on a specific country or area of a country

While clearly mermain, port and mysterious island... are really countries they are more like pavilions, like much of Epcots Future world...


After looking at the Tokyo Disney Sea website I am 100% for adding Disneysea to Orlando it really would be amazing. IMHO

 

[peter11435]

Well DisneySeas is about maritime, the ocean, water, or something to that tune, isn't it? Putting Living Seas there would still make more sense then leaving it in the Future World at EPCOT; or does Disney consider it a different "country" and part of the World Showcase? But it still makes the most sense at AK, IMHO!

Wasn't it closed for awhile during the rehab and then reopened; I thought they had moved the fish out while they were redoing the pavilion. If not, I definitely stand corrected; still...short-sighted of Disney not to have moved it to the AK; if they can remove the 20K Lagoon at MK and fill it in, they definitely have the capability to move a simple aquarium!

-R

As you know know Disney sea is very different than you thought it was. The living seas would be very out of place there. As for the Living Seas at Epcot it is part of Epcots Future World. From your posts I gather that you have never been to the Living Seas of even Epcot for that matter. That said the pavillion was never drained and the fish were never moved. It was simply closed during the rehab. Additionany it would be far from simple to move. It is not a simple aquaruim, it is absolutly huge. For a very long time and possibly still the pavilion was (is) the largest man made salt water environment in the world. Not to mention WDI was awarded an Award of Merit from the National association of civil engineers for the building built to contain it.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

As you know know Disney sea is very different than you thought it was. The living seas would be very out of place there. As for the Living Seas at Epcot it is part of Epcots Future World. From your posts I gather that you have never been to the Living Seas of even Epcot for that matter. That said the pavillion was never drained and the fish were never moved. It was simply closed during the rehab. Additionany it would be far from simple to move. It is not a simple aquaruim, it is absolutly huge. For a very long time and possibly still the pavilion was (is) the largest man made salt water environment in the world. Not to mention WDI was awarded an Award of Merit from the National association of civil engineers for the building built to contain it.

Well, true, I went to Living Seas when it first opened, but haven't recently; guess with going to the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago for so long as well as numerous other aquariums in the country...guess I'll have to step inside next week when I'm there.

Notice my grin in my post when suggesting moving the aquarium...I'm an aquarium buff myself and know full well the forces in even a small home set up. Still think it would be a better fit at AK, but since it's not moving anywhere any time soon guess I'll enjoy it where I can!

No argument ensuing, just still not sure about DisneySea at WDW, 2Xited4Disney. Except for representing differing "ports" than already built at EPCOT isn't that concept/theme the same as World Showcase...now if they would incorporate a DisneySea's setting into the WS Lagoon, that would be a different story, however, Disney doesn't feel it needs to augment EPCOT much anymore since they have larger problems than maximizing the experience at any one park. (Plus, they'd have to redo the whole Illuminations show in a smaller open space.)

For education purposes, what sort of scale are we talking about for DisneySeas? DTD-size? WS-size, MGM-size? Poly resort-size? Thanks.

-R

 

[peter11435]

Well, true, I went to Living Seas when it first opened, but haven't recently; guess with going to the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago for so long as well as numerous other aquariums in the country...guess I'll have to step inside next week when I'm there.

Notice my grin in my post when suggesting moving the aquarium...I'm an aquarium buff myself and know full well the forces in even a small home set up. Still think it would be a better fit at AK, but since it's not moving anywhere any time soon guess I'll enjoy it where I can!

No argument ensuing, just still not sure about DisneySea at WDW, 2Xited4Disney. Except for representing differing "ports" than already built at EPCOT isn't that concept/theme the same as World Showcase...now if they would incorporate a DisneySea's setting into the WS Lagoon, that would be a different story, however, Disney doesn't feel it needs to augment EPCOT much anymore since they have larger problems than maximizing the experience at any one park. (Plus, they'd have to redo the whole Illuminations show in a smaller open space.)

For education purposes, what sort of scale are we talking about for DisneySeas? DTD-size? WS-size, MGM-size? Poly resort-size? Thanks.

-R

World Showcase and DisneySea are very very different. World Showcase is about the culture, food, art, etc of the various countries represented. Tokyo Disney see is about the myths, fiction, and hostory of the sea. It only uses real world locations to provide environments and settings not to show the culture of the respective areas.

 

[ChrisFL]

while I would absolutely love to see an Orlando DisneySea, I doubt Disney would be willing to spend that much money...remember, Tokyo's DisneySea was paid for mostly by Japanese investors

 

[peter11435]

while I would absolutely love to see an Orlando DisneySea, I doubt Disney would be willing to spend that much money...remember, Tokyo's DisneySea was paid for mostly by Japanese investors

Yes, Disney Sea was paid for by the Oriental Land Company. It would probably cost 3-4 billion to build a full scale DisneySea here in Florida. While I agree that is highly unlikely, I would say it is not totally out of the realm of possibility. Whose to say what the future holds for the Walt Disney Company and its spending habits.

 

[ophie]

Eventually there will be another park added. That you can be sure of, and I would guess DisneySea would be it. That park looks really amazing and considering how easy it is to create lakes and such in Florida it makes sense, but this is years off. Maybe as many as ten.

That's the most feasible rumor that I've heard. The latest info that I have heard though was that Park 5 was in the works as a post-HCOE announcement but got shelved with the Pixar deal.

 

[Another Voice]

Whose to say what the future holds for the Walt Disney Company and its spending habits.

Actually, both Eisner and Iger have made very clear what Disney’s spending is going to be like. Both consider the U.S. parks to be “mature markets” where large capital spending can’t be justified. While there will be limited spending to replace attractions and such (to entice people to make return visits), you won’t see any new theme parks at WDW. Disney sees the only place to expand theme parks is internationally with a minor chance for the ever-troubled “regional entertainment” projects (DisneyQuest, ESPNZone, DisneyZone) here in the U.S.

It all comes down to executive preference and experience. Eisner preferred to spend his money on movies in hopes of a quick return. Iger wants to spend the money buying expense programs for ABC and investing in new distribution technologies. At the same time, large sums of money were spent on the Animal Kingdom and California Adventure. Not only have those places not yet returned a profit, both have required massive further investments just keep them in the “big time failure” columns. And less not forget Euro Disney – which sailed right through “big time failure” and fell all the way to “so epic it gets laughs in business courses” category.

Until someone can convince the corporate headquarters in Burbank that a theme park will generate returns just as fast as a blockbuster movie can – the biggest changes we’ll see WDW are newly decorated prefab rides and a couple of new AA figures now and again.

 

[peter11435]

Actually, both Eisner and Iger have made very clear what Disney’s spending is going to be like. Both consider the U.S. parks to be “mature markets” where large capital spending can’t be justified. While there will be limited spending to replace attractions and such (to entice people to make return visits), you won’t see any new theme parks at WDW. Disney sees the only place to expand theme parks is internationally with a minor chance for the ever-troubled “regional entertainment” projects (DisneyQuest, ESPNZone, DisneyZone) here in the U.S.

It all comes down to executive preference and experience. Eisner preferred to spend his money on movies in hopes of a quick return. Iger wants to spend the money buying expense programs for ABC and investing in new distribution technologies. At the same time, large sums of money were spent on the Animal Kingdom and California Adventure. Not only have those places not yet returned a profit, both have required massive further investments just keep them in the “big time failure” columns. And less not forget Euro Disney – which sailed right through “big time failure” and fell all the way to “so epic it gets laughs in business courses” category.

Until someone can convince the corporate headquarters in Burbank that a theme park will generate returns just as fast as a blockbuster movie can – the biggest changes we’ll see WDW are newly decorated prefab rides and a couple of new AA figures now and again.

Plans always change. And besides who is to say Iger will even still be around in a few years. While Eisner did put tons of money into movies, there was an extended period early on where he heavily invested in the parks. Things change and so do peoples spening habits.

While I have no specific proof, I have a hard time accepting that AK has not yet returned a profit.

 

[mommyceratops]

AK hasn't made a profit? We enjoy AK and spent 2 days there on our last vacation there. But then agian we are animal lovers.