DisneyKidds
<font color=green>The TF thanks DisneyKidds for mo
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2001
Ding, Ding. Round 2 (or is it 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.....) on the AK half day park thing .
.....because they personally don't like everything the AK has to offer. And I don't know that that applies to the majority, too hard to make that statement with certainty. I, personally, like what the AK has to offer. But putting that aside, if you go to the AK and experience all of the good entertainment (not that everyone thinks the same things are good) the AK is a full day park. If you do, see, and appreciate everything it would take more than a day. If you skip the things you personally don't like (and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't good) that may make it a half day park FOR YOU, but you can't unequivically call it a half day park for everyone. Even if it is 'incomplete', you still can't experience all that it has to offer in a half day. No way, no how.
My point on #2 (I think I had one ) is this. If you define failure as people viewing a park as a half day park because they personally don't like it (which is the case with AK), then by Baron's statement he is saying that Walt may have been just as likely to create a 'failure'. BTW, I don't agree with this definition of failure. Yes, Walt knew his customers better and delivered better than current management. However, my wants are satisfied. I'm not greedy and can appreciate what has been offered up (hence, my Car #1 status). That does not mean that I am content with second class and that I am compromising my expectation for a wonderful, Magical experience. Current management delivers that.
You are close. However, people are making it into a failure because they don't like it because it isn't what they thought it was intended to be. They aren't even looking at what it was really intended to be. OK, I know that is confusing you more, but I'll try and clarify.
If people looked at AK for what it was intended to be they might be happy. As you state, it was intended to be a theme park with an animal theme. Nothing more, nothing less. It was intended to be something unique in that regard, and they hit the mark. It was intended to show you animals in a different way from any other park, and they hit the mark with that (KS). It was intended to have incredible animal themed shows, and they hit the mark with that. It was intended to have rides that fit into the overall theme and provided the guests with fun and excitement, and they hit the mark on that (although not as well as the other targets). How can anyone possibly call this a failure? Here's how. They say that AK is not the best zoo in the world. Well, guess what, it was never intended to be that (remember, the intent was to merge zoo and theme park in a unique way, not be a zoo). They say AK does not have the best rides of any theme park in the world. Well, guess what, it was never intended to do that (remember, the intent was to provide unique animal themes attractions, not just be another garden variety theme park). If people stopped running around saying 'hey, as a zoo this place stinks', or 'hey, the rides are better in (insert park of choice)' and actually enjoyed AK for what it has to offer they might actually enjoy it, and maybe even love it. Am I getting anywhere here (not to get you to agree that AK is not a failure, but to understand what I am trying to say)?
Hope that is of some help .
People call the park a half a day park because that's how long they stay (I'm talking about the majority of guests...).
.....because they personally don't like everything the AK has to offer. And I don't know that that applies to the majority, too hard to make that statement with certainty. I, personally, like what the AK has to offer. But putting that aside, if you go to the AK and experience all of the good entertainment (not that everyone thinks the same things are good) the AK is a full day park. If you do, see, and appreciate everything it would take more than a day. If you skip the things you personally don't like (and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't good) that may make it a half day park FOR YOU, but you can't unequivically call it a half day park for everyone. Even if it is 'incomplete', you still can't experience all that it has to offer in a half day. No way, no how.
My point on #2 (I think I had one ) is this. If you define failure as people viewing a park as a half day park because they personally don't like it (which is the case with AK), then by Baron's statement he is saying that Walt may have been just as likely to create a 'failure'. BTW, I don't agree with this definition of failure. Yes, Walt knew his customers better and delivered better than current management. However, my wants are satisfied. I'm not greedy and can appreciate what has been offered up (hence, my Car #1 status). That does not mean that I am content with second class and that I am compromising my expectation for a wonderful, Magical experience. Current management delivers that.
Or are you saying we're making Animal into a failure because we don't like it for what it was intended to be (which what the heck is that??? I thought Disney was attempting to build a theme park with an Animal theme.)
You are close. However, people are making it into a failure because they don't like it because it isn't what they thought it was intended to be. They aren't even looking at what it was really intended to be. OK, I know that is confusing you more, but I'll try and clarify.
If people looked at AK for what it was intended to be they might be happy. As you state, it was intended to be a theme park with an animal theme. Nothing more, nothing less. It was intended to be something unique in that regard, and they hit the mark. It was intended to show you animals in a different way from any other park, and they hit the mark with that (KS). It was intended to have incredible animal themed shows, and they hit the mark with that. It was intended to have rides that fit into the overall theme and provided the guests with fun and excitement, and they hit the mark on that (although not as well as the other targets). How can anyone possibly call this a failure? Here's how. They say that AK is not the best zoo in the world. Well, guess what, it was never intended to be that (remember, the intent was to merge zoo and theme park in a unique way, not be a zoo). They say AK does not have the best rides of any theme park in the world. Well, guess what, it was never intended to do that (remember, the intent was to provide unique animal themes attractions, not just be another garden variety theme park). If people stopped running around saying 'hey, as a zoo this place stinks', or 'hey, the rides are better in (insert park of choice)' and actually enjoyed AK for what it has to offer they might actually enjoy it, and maybe even love it. Am I getting anywhere here (not to get you to agree that AK is not a failure, but to understand what I am trying to say)?
Hope that is of some help .