Walt Disney World Parking Fee now $9 dollars

[Another Voice]

I would be willing to bet that not one of Disneyland opening day attractions would satisfy you if it were built today.

Of course not. People judge new things against what their experience had been up to that point. Disneyland in 1955 was astounding because people had only known of amusment parks as dirty, disorganized and uninteresting. Now Disney came along and created a whole new experience - a chance to walk right into a movie and live out a story in "real life".

It happens today too. When both Animal Kingdom and California Adventure opened, people compared them against their experience. They found them utter lacking the "magic" and care that had been created in parks built decades before. People decided it was a backwards slide - a second rate zoo without a single new concept and a parking lot carnival that was way too hip for you red state tourists - and have shown their dislike through their non-attendance.

 

[Aintdisablast]

- a second rate zoo without a single new concept and a parking lot carnival that was way too hip for you red state tourists - and have shown their dislike through their non-attendance.

A little too harsh on AK,AV,OK.

The Tree in AK is an astounding achievement. Disney at its finest.

Not to mention the ribs at Flame Tree BBQ.

 

[peter11435]

People decided it was a backwards slide - a second rate zoo without a single new concept and a parking lot carnival that was way too hip for you red state tourists - and have shown their dislike through their non-attendance.

That comment alone proves that you have either never been to AK, or are just impossible to please. I (nor anyone else I have every heard) would never call AK a second rate zoo. As for saying the park does not have a single new concept that is so misinformed it is ridiculous. I would hardly say Ak's attendance (higher than both IOA and US) shows that people dislike it. And don't even start with your park hopping excuse.

 

[raidermatt]

No the hotels were the problem with DLP. However the basic problem with the hotels was too much too fast.

Too much too fast because they misread the market and/or didn't provide what the market wanted with respect to the hotels.

That's hardly a reason to abandon a core philosophy with regard to park creation.

Of course, if you argue that Disney has indeed lost its ability to really figure out what the market will want and how to provide that on a large scale, then maybe their best strategy is to become risk averse. But then that wouldn't support the idea that they are still trying to be "Disney".

All that said, its not that I'm saying every single person who still has that desire to do "Disney" things has left the company. But the company is most certainly not making strategic decsions just for the sake being Disney.

They tried to improve or fix (whichever) AK and DCA with cheap additions, like Dinorama and Flik's Fun Fair. They only went to larger additions when the cheaper ones didn't produce the hoped for results.

They open the parks small partly to mitigate risk, but also partly to make sure they do as little as possible in order to acheive stated goals like "adding a day to length of stays".

That kind of strategy goes fundamentally against being Disney.

Sure, some people still want to do Disney-like work within the company, and sometimes they manage to do so. But that can't be used as a defense for the way the company as a whole has abandoned that strategic vision. Not that there's much hope of ever really getting it back, but if we excuse it, there will be no hope.

 

[YoHo]

That comment alone proves that you have either never been to AK, or are just impossible to please. I (nor anyone else I have every heard) would never call AK a second rate zoo. As for saying the park does not have a single new concept that is so misinformed it is ridiculous. I would hardly say Ak's attendance (higher than both IOA and US) shows that people dislike it. And don't even start with your park hopping excuse.

Maybe you've never been to the San Diego Zoo or it's wild animal park. Or maybe you just bought the nahtazu marketing.

 

[raidermatt]

I would hardly say Ak's attendance (higher than both IOA and US) shows that people dislike it. And don't even start with your park hopping excuse.

AV says what he feels.

On the attendance:

-Universal is not the bar. Disney is supposed to be the bar.
-Park hopping is tricky, but you can't simply dismiss it as an excuse.
-Beyond simple park hopping, you can't seriously suggest that AK's attendance is not significantly helped by the fact that it is in the same resort as MK, Epcot, and even MGM, and that all mult-day ticket media include it? Yes, IOA and USF help each other as well, but there's no way that help equals the kind of help MK, Epcot and the rest of WDW provides.

That doesn't completely invalidate AK's entire attendance figure, but we can't ignore the fact that it gets a lot of help as well.

 

[All Aboard]

I (nor anyone else I have every heard) would never call AK a second rate zoo.

Would you call it a first rate zoo, or not a zoo at all? The problem with AK is that it tries to be both a zoo (even though they scream Nahtazu constantly) and a theme park at the same time, and comes up short on both. Mostly, because it would seem that it is a concept that is very hard to pull off. It's hard to be 50% of each. Personally, I think AK would have been more successful right out of the box if it were 75% theme park and 25% zoo. And, I think the folks at WDW realize this too. Think about what has been added. Kali, Dinorama, and now Everest - theme park elements. But, the only zoo element added has been Maharaja. This has tilted the mix a little more in favor of theme park. I wouldn't be surprised if we never see any more live animal attractions added to AK.

If Disney really wanted to do a first rate zoo, they'd have done something on par with San Diego.

 

[Aintdisablast]

They tried to improve or fix (whichever) AK and DCA with cheap additions, like Dinorama and Flik's Fun Fair. They only went to larger additions when the cheaper ones didn't produce the hoped for results.

I believe the state of the economy & 9/11 were a major influence of Disney taking the cheap route. Things were not good at the Mouse House at the time. While Dino truely is not a quality Disney product, it was at least an addition to a thin park.

The worst part though is that Dinoland is a fairly popular area. It could/may/might/is sending the wrong message to Disney: "No problem,cheap is okay, we'll still pay to play".

Fortunately, E:E was greenlite and appears to be the genuine article.

 

[peter11435]

Maybe you've never been to the San Diego Zoo or it's wild animal park. Or maybe you just bought the nahtazu marketing.

I find most of your posts to be extremely rude. Most people on these boards seem to be able to have a constructive debate. You only seem to be able to make rude comments.

 

[peter11435]

Would you call it a first rate zoo, or not a zoo at all? The problem with AK is that it tries to be both a zoo (even though they scream Nahtazu constantly) and a theme park at the same time, and comes up short on both. Mostly, because it would seem that it is a concept that is very hard to pull off. It's hard to be 50% of each. Personally, I think AK would have been more successful right out of the box if it were 75% theme park and 25% zoo. And, I think the folks at WDW realize this too. Think about what has been added. Kali, Dinorama, and now Everest - theme park elements. But, the only zoo element added has been Maharaja. This has tilted the mix a little more in favor of theme park. I wouldn't be surprised if we never see any more live animal attractions added to AK.

If Disney really wanted to do a first rate zoo, they'd have done something on par with San Diego.

I would not call AK a zoo at all. I would call it a theme park whose theme is animals. I feel they accomplish this very well. If you don't then don't go there.

 

[All Aboard]

That comment alone proves that you have either never been to AK, or are just impossible to please.

How is that any less rude than what YoHo typed?

 

[Aintdisablast]

Maybe you've never been to the San Diego Zoo or it's wild animal park. Or maybe you just bought the nahtazu marketing.

How old is the SD Zoo ?

What did it look like when it was seven years old ?

Has it been a work in progress over the years ?

 

[peter11435]

How is that any less rude than what YoHo typed?

Seriously? Yoho said "Or maybe you just bought" which implies that I am stupid and fell for their advertisement. I never insulted AV intelligence. I simply said he has never been there (not rude at all IMO) or that he is impossible to please (again not rude IMO).

 

[peter11435]

How old is the SD Zoo ?

What did it look like when it was seven years old ?

Has it been a work in progress over the years ?

Very good point. The SD Zoo opened in the early 1920's. That means that it is over 80 years old while AK is not even 8. Hardly comparable by any standards.

 

[All Aboard]

If you don't then don't go there.

Oy, my second favorite DIS board response, right behind "nice chatting with you ".

But, you see I do want to go there. And, I want AK to be just as great a theme park as Disneyland, MK, Epcot and DisneySea. I want every Disney theme park to be that great. Trouble is that the ones owned by Disney and most recently built WDSP, DCA, and AK do not. They are generally regarded as the least popular Disney theme parks.

On another Disney fan website, a poll with 1000 respondents (enough to make it statistically significant) asks "What's your favorite WDW park" 47% said MK, 35% said Epcot, 12% said Studios and just 6% said AK.

It's not just me. AK has failed to capture the same "love" that MK and Epcot have. And, it could have had it been conceived and built to do so.

 

[YoHo]

It's not a good point at all. The point is that in 1996, The SD Zoo and Wild Animal park were better and in 2005 they are better at showcasing the animals in a natural environment with a better safari and better exhibits. Since AK was built in 1996 then I should expect to be as good or better then the Zoo in 1996. Especially if I'm expecting it to be Disney quality. And of course there's the interesting little tidbit that the SD Zoo became world class when the director sent the employees to Disneyland and then said This is what I want you to model yourselves after.

But apparently, according to you it's perfectly fine for Disney to Open AK and say
"Hey, this is as good as the San Diego Zoo was in 1920. In 80 years though it'll be awesome."


As far as rudeness, I'll cop to the occasional snarky comment or 2, but Peter, you have been rude and disdainful of me for some time now. Why (beyond christian decency or pagan Decency or whatever you believe) should I be concerned with your offense?

 

[raidermatt]

How old is the SD Zoo ?

What did it look like when it was seven years old ?

Has it been a work in progress over the years ?

Who built the SD Zoo?

Whose succesful business plan were they following?

What resources were available to them?

How many years passed between its opening and AK's?

 

[DancingBear]

Forget AK for the moment. Can you look at Feature Animation and say that "Disney is still Disney"?

 

[YoHo]

Whose succesful business plan were they following?

Gosh, you know what, they were following Walt's philosophy. Imagine that.

 

[raidermatt]

I believe the state of the economy & 9/11 were a major influence of Disney taking the cheap route. Things were not good at the Mouse House at the time.

If we are suggesting that Disney is still Disney, then that's no excuse.

What happens in the next downturn?

The worst part though is that Dinoland is a fairly popular area. It could/may/might/is sending the wrong message to Disney: "No problem,cheap is okay, we'll still pay to play".

Popular compared to what?

Given the relative track records of their cheap vs. "uncheap" efforts on the whole, if they are going to point to this one as any kind of justification for going cheap, I'd have to say shame on them. Wouldn't you?