Is a bigger disney world a better disney world????

[Bob O]

From reading a lot of threads on these boards their are alot of comments stating disney world is better now because it is bigger, but is that really true. Is bigger/more parks better than smaller/less parks???
My question is do you think disney would have been better not building Animal Kingdom at all, but instead used that money to beef up the remaining 3 parks??? Would we be better of if the MK had used a portion of the money to build Fire Mountain or some other attraction where the lagoon now stands empty.Or maybe have built a couple of additional countries in Epcot like had been planned. Or maybe have added a new attraction to MGM or redone the outdated Star Tours. With the money used to build Animal Kingdom disney could have helped out all 3 parks rather then now have to spread the money they have over 4 parks. Most people it seems to me believe that Animal Kingdom is now only a half day park anyway and i wonder how many people visit it as part of a park hopper but if they had to buy a single day admission to the park would they?
What are your comments, in retrospect was building Animal Kingdom the right thing or has it siphoned off money that could have been used better in the remaining 3 parks.

 

[Captain Crook]

Good question Bob O, and I think the answer in an undeniable yes...And no.

WDW needed to grow, IMO, or the Park population would be unbearable all of the time. Before AK & in MGM's early days we didn't go nearly as much because the crowds were just getting unmanageable. Throughout the good years (the Clinton years - that's tongue in cheek, fella's), travel in the USA was unprecedented and WDW was filled to the brim. I think AK was needed and is, in fact, my favorite Park, although I will admit that it is, so far, an underachiever. One of the main reason's we don't take US or SW seriously in our family is that they are basically 'day trips' and we're not driving 5.5 hours for a one day destination (I know others feel differently & while I respect that opinion, we just don't see these parks as anymore than that).

I am in the scoop school when it comes to adding things. I love Disney because of the way it is and they don't have to continue to offer new e-ticket attractions yearly to keep me satisfied. I'm buying the whole package, so to speak. With that said, however, I hate to see empty areas like 20,000 leagues, the Skyway & ABC Theatre. I do believe there should be a consistent push forward - even if they're baby steps. That's why you'll not hear complaints from me over Dino-Rama or new parades...IMO, it's all good. I think the push toward BK is huge and necessary step, however.

As someone discussed earlier (elsewhere) I do worry about maintenance & upkeeep, for I feel the maintenance of the Disney quality is more important than adding new attractions (by quality I mean cleanliness, guest services & the little things - that are under some stress right now).

In conclusion, I don't think Disney had a choice with regard to the 90's expansion just like I think they're locked into a relaive 'no growth' phase for a while in the 00's. But I think it's important that they remember who they are and how they got where they are more than how are we going to keep up with the Jones', er Universal...

 

[daannzzz]

I love the Animal Kingdom and can spend a whole day there. The point of building the AK was to get people to extend their stay. However could Disney have done this without building the AK. How many people spend two days at MK, Epcot, and The Studios. The Studios is my least favorite park yet I can easily spend a day and a half there. I almost always do two days at Epcot and mostly a day and a half at the MK. What would have happened if they had taken the $$$ from the AKL and put a ride ( not a movie) in each of the attractionless countries in World Showcase. These would be D and E ticked rides. That would add 5 new rides. What if they added a couple more E tickets to MK and The studios. Would that make people extend their stay to cover everything?
Personally I like going to the different parks because of the atmosphere and it did make me stay at WDW longer. Instead of going to see other Orlando attractions. I go to the AK.

 

[vacationwoman]

I think your right about WDW having to build AK (even though I personally don't like it all, the last 3 times I was there a lion and tiger were laying on a rock in the same exact position "sleeping" according to Safari guide. I don't even think they are real)
The influx of visitors needed another "area" to handle them. I think also that maintenence and small services are suffering in recent times because of the Corporation overextending themselves with ABC and Fox Family purchases. The parks are suffering because of this and other mismanagement (in my opinion). Todays Executives don't have the same feeling for Disney as the family did.

Happy Birthday Walt

 

[Bob O]

I think the thing that happened is people arent extending their stay at Animal Kingdom like disney had hoped. I think people are making time for it at the expense of others parks but not staying longer. I think it would be intersting to compare all the individual parks in single day ticket sales. When people only have a day or two to see where they go, i would guess Animal Kingdom would fare badly compared to the other 3. I enjoy Animal Kingdom, but its not a complete park as it is now and thats why from what i read and hear that nighttime attendance is very low. I think rather then build a incomplete 4th gate disney should have put the money into the other 3 parks and not build a 4th park till they were ready to do it right like TDS.

 

[Eeyore2U]

Since we go yearly, we spend a half day at AK. Have never eaten a meal there or seen the parade. I think if they build Beastly Kingdom the landscape changes. Hopefully that will be announced at the media event in December.

 

[C.Ann]

Animal Kingdom is my least favorite park and after seeing it for the first time this past September I would say the money could have been better spent on possibly expanding or updating the remaining 3 parks.. Something about AK just doesn't "do it" for me and oddly enough, I love animal parks!

 

[Captain Crook]

C.Ann, I appreciate your view, but you failed to address a couple of our suppositions that a 4th gate was absolutely needed.

Do you think it would it have been better to upgrade the three Parks to such a level that we have the 190 minute attraction waits like TDS (as indicated on another thread)?

Also, although AK is underperforming there are still a lot devotees (such as myself) who find it utterly magical...

 

[YoHo]

If the studios had been designed better, it could have handled more people.

Epcot is obscenely huge yet has comparativly few long wait time attractions. and there are plenty of possible themes.

Animal Kingdom wasn't needed. That theory is completely incorrect. Adding a Fire mountain, or Villians mountain would only serve to balance out wait times throughout MK. RnRC and Fantasmic helped the Studios, but Star Tours is doing woefully little buisness right now. That upgrade would have taken the heat off.

Epcot built test track which was good and JIYI which is bad. I don't know that that was a budget problem though. I think that was a creativity failure.


Don't get me wrong, I love Animal Kingdom. If they had a full service sit down resturant it would be fairly complete in my book and Beastly Kingdom would be nice too, but they did NEED to build it. Heck if they hadn't built it, they might be better off now.

 

[Captain Crook]

We haven't disagreed in awhile Yoho, but I guess we do now.

I see MK as a boondoggle continuosly and adding Fire Mtn...Well, forget it. It is true that Epcot has pleanty of space, but it also has a lot of slow loading attractions, danger Will Robinson, danger...TT's waiting times are a good indicator of what would happen if new E tickets were built - I suspect we'll see an unbearable crowd influx when SPACE opens.

Now MGM, well, it was built the way it was, right or wrong so this is what we have. I think The Studios are prone to fill up with 'less provcation' shall we say because of its relative size. Again, its shows are slow, its traffic flow isn't particularily good & its small. I think MGM & Epcot definately need a couple of new attractions but considering the money they spent on AK, they could have gone nuts with E ticket rides and I do believe the lines would be ridiculous.

Lastly, on every trip this year Star Tours had had a 20 minute line (minimum)...

gcurling, if you're out there I'd love your thoughts on this particular issue...

 

[fklhou]

While I love AK, we rarely stay pass 11 a.m. Beastly Kingdom would help make AK more of a full day park. Clearly both Epcot and MGM could use another E-ticket ride each. MK needs to update a couple of rides and replace 20,000 Leagues with something.

 

[YoHo]

Hmm, I haven't seen a 20 minute wait (I wouldn't consider that long either way) on Star Tours in years.

Actually, Epcot used to have a number of fast load attractions. some have been removed others are just old.

Star Tours should be demanding 40 minute waits.
In my opinion, if an E-Ticket doesn't maintain a 40 minute wait during mildly busy times, then it isn't pulling its wait(pun completely intended).

Remember, MK's attendance level has a cap. Adding E-tickets puts more guests in line which makes things feel less crowded. Further, by upping the ride count and the wait times, your forcing people to allocate an extra day to their vacations which was the goal in the first place.
Your going to get people in to MK whether you build a new E-Ticket or not, you have a garunteed audience. For much less expense, you can add vacation days.


The gamble with Animal Kingdom seems to have been that by spreading the guests out, making it seem less crowded and offering another park, they would gain vacation days. That kind of gamble requires money. Disney decided part way through to not spend all of the money. For the money they did spend, they could have done a thousand things to the rest of the Resort and it would have truely been better and might have achieved their goal.

 

[Bob O]

I dont think disney needed a fourth gate. They could have made the existing parks better with more attractions to handle bigger crowds. Animal Kingdom i dont believe accomplised its objective by increasing the amount of days people stay per trip. And if they did add a fourth gate it should have been a complete park from the get go, rather than a incomplete park like it is now. But this has been a very interesting discussion.

 

[Captain Crook]

I can't dispute that perhaps Disney should have "finished" AK at inception, but it really isn't fair to second guess, either. I'm not privy to plans predicated on this economy or that or any of a million other items used in their decision making. I only know what WAS done, and I am quite happy with AK - even Dinorama, but I AM anxiously awaiting BK.

As to MK, yes it has capacities and yes new E-tickets would sort out the crowds, somewhat. But without the 4th gate and with added incentives (new attractions) for more people to come to MK (or Epcot or MGM), these Parks would hit capacity far more frequently (under normal circumstances). I have been to MK on several occasions of capacity & Epcot once, and let me tell you these ARE NOT pretty sights.

Perhaps Disney could introduce enough new attractions to spread out the capacity crowds somewhat but I honestly don't think so.

I still beleive the 4th gate was necessary & I still believe AK is a great Park - And if it isn't now, it soon will be.

 

[airlarry!]

Yoho! I agree with you on your assessment of AK. I know I may have mentioned this a while back, but can you imagine if AK had two more full lands (BK & Australia) with two big ticket items and complementery smaller attractions ... with ... a sit down restaurant a la Cinderella's Royal Table but INSIDE the Tree of Life...with a beautiful view of some park area?

Wow.

Can you imagine how hard it would be to book some Character Breakfast (Lion King comes to mind or Pocohantos) inside the Tree of Life?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

When: Early August
Where: The Dolphin (while on Disney property, clearly NOT a Disney resort!)
Attendants: gcurling, The Pirate Captain (Peter Crook) and the "old" LandBaron
Purpose: Face to face Disney discussion
Subject: Gates at WDW

The meeting was to take place by the pool. However, rain moved the meeting inside. At the bar (where else?). About half way through the meeting the conversation turned to the amount of gates at WDW. Gcurling and the LandBaron were deep into a hot debate on the subject and were (as usual) on opposite ends of the spectrum. My question is: Why didn't Bob O, that self proclaimed but quite correct "Voice of Reason" make his presence known as long as he was sitting close enough to eavesdrop?

I'm only kidding of course. I guess this is just my way of absolutely agreeing with the esteemed Mr. Bob O. Every word of his posts (and YoHo's) is 100% correct!!!! Once again, the suits got greedy. They mistook quantity for quality. Something that is diametrically opposed to the original "Disney philosophy".

Hmmm. Somehow, I'm not surprised. How sad.

 

[YoHo]

Actually, While I would love AK to have 2 additional lands, I don't even think that was needed. Dinorama or some version of it should have been there from the get go. (fancy playgrounds don't cut it for adults and remember, Disney parks aren't supposed to be JUST for kids.) Africa and Asia could both do with another traditional attraction such as a Dark ride. Right now there simply isn't enough draw to each individual land.

Or alternatly, Camp Minny Mickey and Conservation station should have been better fleshed out.

 

[daannzzz]

I can spen a whole day at AK but I do understand that for others it is a short park. The addition of Beastly Kingdom will be nice but it will not add that much more time to anyones day particularly if the main E-ticket is a coaster. If they add a coaster and another C or D ticket attraction that will add another hour for people and they will leave at 2:00 instead of 1:00. I would love to see some C and D tickets added to all the lands along with a couple full service restaurants. I would love to be able to stay in this park after dark and experience the ambiance, lighting and feel after the sun goes down. It will take more than BK to keep all these others in AK until after sundown.

 

[JeffJewell]

...to the simple "not enough to do" complaints, there is a more subtle reason that there's a mass exodus from AK during the early afternoon: the contract with Rainforest Cafe stipulates that Disney cannot open a "competing" restaurant inside the park. So if you're planning what park to attend some afternoon/evening, and wondering what kind of "nicer" dinner options are available, the only thing AK can offer is a re-run from Downtown Disney (which is a re-run from points non-Disney across the globe).

The lack of restaurant options contributes to making the other three parks more attractive afternoon/evening parks than AK.

Jeff

PS: In answer to the actual topic, I don't think there's any inherent advantage or disadvantage to opening another gate versus making improvements to existing gates. I simply think Disney blew it on several different aspects of AK, resulting in the lackluster attendance. If Disney had made "improvements" to the other parks and blew them the same way that they did AK, those improvements would also have failed to achieve the desired results.

 

[Lesley]

Nightime visitors to AK? The times I visited it wasn't a problem because they closed at 5....there is no nighttime at AK.

I don't know that AK was necessary, but I'm glad they built it. I love AK. I would like to see it be more of what it was intended to be...they really should not have even opened without a Beastly Kingdom (don't you think the elements that were worked into the logo art, etc...should have at least been included from the beginning?)

Once again I just see it as Disney doing things "cheap" instead of "right"

Now the question remains if I would prefer upgrades/better maintenance at the 3 previously existing parks over having AK. Damn, that's a tough one....I want it all. Actually I vote for maintenance over new stuff.....but when there is new stuff I'd like it to be quality. Does that make sense? If it would mean no new attractions or parks to keep all the lightbulbs lit, paint fresh, rides running smoothly and service wonderful....I think it would be worth it. Disney is not perfect as it is...it was perfect as it was. They've added alot but taken away some of the most important things. Part of the appeal of WDW from the beginning for me is that it appeared to be a world immune to things like "wearing out" and "running down"....everything was fresh and beautiful and taken care of, and the cm's reflected that as well...friendly, helpful, and caring.