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

[All Aboard]

I'm not sure where this discussion is right now. Are we debating the quality of AK again? Are we debating the necessity of AK? Are we talking future parks v. future attractions? Are we discussing attraction loading speeds and their impact on crowds? I guess it's a little of all of this.

Landbaron knows that I am a proponent of continued park development. But, (as I insert a caveat here) at a very slow and protracted pace. I speak more from a selfish standpoint. Most of you know that I spend about 30-40 days a year in the WDW parks. Clearly, more parks would offer us the opportunity to spread out time around more.

Wait, is it "clearly"?

Not if the offerings don't "do" it for us. And, unfortuneately AK doesn't "do" it for us. We have spent such little time in AK this year that it's a bit scary. On our most recent trip earlier this month, we shot over to AK at the end of our last day (Sunday) rode Dinosaur once, tried out the soft opening of Tricertaop Spin, got in the car and headed back to Miami. In fact, on our next three day weekend, I don't have AK in the plans at all. What's the problem? Well, we are also annual passholders at Miami Metrozoo & Parrot Jungle. Walking through the treks, trails & taking the safari offer us little that we can't get in our own back yard. Kali has lost it's novelty, ITTBAB (like Muppetvision) is close to "been-there-done-that" status, and then there's... well there really isn't much left. It'll take a BK to get us to spend any significant time there in the future.

It seems that Disney put lots of dollars into places at AK where there is not much payoff. Take the Tree of Life for example the animal carvings are magnificent - but how many folks do you hear raving about that? I think guests want outstanding attractions. They want to be wowed at every level. There is very little at AK that does that.

Now, if WDW dropped an IOA on property, they'd get many repeat visits from us. And Disney is clearly capable of that kind of park.

From a business perspective, I'd be very concerned that Central Florida is coming very close to capacity. Just how many more theme parks can be justified? The bottom line for me is that the best course of action for the foreseeable (10 year) future is to beef up the four existing offerings and backburner any plans of a 5th gate.

Confused? Me too.

As to loading times for Test Track. Peter Captain, I don't think that loading time is the chief cause of TT's long lines. Instead I think it is purely popularity. Earlier in the month, I timed the interval of cars whizzing by on the Track. Seems to be a fairly consistent 12 seconds. That's 5 cars a minute, each with a load of 6 guests. So, 30 guests a minute translates to 1800 guests per hour (barring breakdowns) and while I'm no expert, I think that's pretty good.

 

[All Aboard]

Ok Scoop, first question, have you been to IoA?

It's not a coaster park. It has no more coasters than the Magic Kingdom. It's definitely more thrill oriented and may be classified as a thrill park, but that's not what I really enjoy about IoA. I love the immersive theming and the fact that they did every single attraction "all the way." And not just the attractions... the restaurants, shops, everything was done in an "all out" fashion. I was really blown away the first time I went to IoA.

As for the height restrictions, there's actually quite a bit a 42 inch child can do. My 3 year old (nearing 4) daughter is now 42 inches tall in shoes. She can't ride Hulk, Dr. Doom, Dragons or Ripsaw. That's it at both parks, 4 attractions. Between Disney-MGM Studios & Magic Kingdom, there are 3 attractions for which she is too small.

Chad, you are "homering" a bit on this one. There's nothing wrong with "homering". Before I attended IoA, I too thought only Disney was capable of building a park that deserves very high accolades. I've since changed my opinion.

 

[Eeyore2U]

It's not a coaster park. It has no more coasters than the Magic Kingdom. It's definitely more thrill oriented and may be classified as a thrill park, but that's not what I really enjoy about IoA. I love the immersive theming and the fact that they did every single attraction "all the way." And not just the attractions... the restaurants, shops, everything was done in an "all out" fashion. I was really blown away the first time I went to IoA.

I was at IoA last February and thought it was nothing more then a coaster park. I thought it was cheapely done. The so called animatronics in Ripsaw Falls were cheesy. The themeing did not jump at out me. We were fortunate enough to do the park in about 4 hours but we were not excited about it. Part of my problem was NONE of the shops or food stands were open. I will say that Spiderman was one of the best rides I have seen. We will go back this February for a day for DS and friend but I think I'll be looking forward to lunch/dinner at CityWalk more then IoA.

 

[YoHo]

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that Disney Should have Dropped in AK with IOA's level of completeness?

Having not been to IOA, I can't really comment, but based on what I've read about the park, I don't get the impression that it follows a specific Theme per se. Such as AK, or The Studios.

I don't think simply Disney's IOA with disney characters instead of Universal licenses would be a good plan.

 

[All Aboard]

Mitch, no doubt Ripsaw Falls is the weakest link at IoA. But other side by side comparisons of "theirs" to "ours" such as Popeye v. Kali & Jurassic Park v. Dinosaur go in favor of IoA for me. Plus, their children's play areas are equal or better. If I ran the Zoo, Camp Jurassic, Me Ship the Olive, Fievel's Playland and Curious George combine for some outstanding children's areas. Walt Disney World really only has Honey I Shrunk the Kids and The Boneyard. Overall themeing is quite thourough and encompassing to me. From the out of the way areas in Suess Landing to the winding streets of The Lost Continent to the wonderful stage that's set as you pass through Port of Entry.

Don't get me wrong, the Mouse is still King in my book. But Universal has proven (to me at least) that Disney hasn't completely cornered the market on very well done theme parks.

Mitch, too bad you were not able to get into the restaurants. That's one of the things that I think IoA has done best. Even the counter service restaurants like Thunder Falls, Burger Digs & Enchanted Oak Tavern are wonderfully architetured and decorated. Mythos is fascinating.

YoHo, that's a good synopsis. I don't think that IoA as it is works in the family of Disney parks. Certainly it draws on an entirely different set of characters. On the whole, it's a far more "finished" park than AK, and I guess that's what I was driving at. It's hard to explain, but I just wish that AK "did" for me what IoA "does."

As for the theming mix, it flows in a somewhat ackward pattern when you jump from The Lost Continent to Suess Landing. But, otherwise the flow is pretty smooth.


I'm not sure how the park gets the reputation of being a coaster park. Folks, it has two adult coasters and a kid coaster. That's it. We aren't talking about Cedar Park here.

 

[Eeyore2U]

Mitch, no doubt Ripsaw Falls is the weakest link at IoA. But other side by side comparisons of "theirs" to "ours" such as Popeye v. Kali & Jurassic Park v. Dinosaur go in favor of IoA for me. Plus, their children's play areas are equal or better. If I ran the Zoo, Camp Jurassic, Me Ship the Olive, Fievel's Playland and Curious George combine for some outstanding children's areas. Walt Disney World really only has Honey I Shrunk the Kids and The Boneyard. Overall themeing is quite thourough and encompassing to me. From the out of the way areas in Suess Landing to the winding streets of The Lost Continent to the wonderful stage that's set as you pass through Port of Entry

I'll give you Popeye, but not Jurrasic Park. I'll take ToT over Dr Fear. We don't use the children's play areas but DS had fun at Feivel's years ago. I will give you that Lost Continent is wonderfully themed. But as for the rest it doesn't stick in my mind. We were last in US about 9 years ago. Nothing there made me want to go back since it was bland. When I make the comparison between US/IOA and WDW, WDW is a vacation and US/IOA is a day trip. I wish we could get a 2park/1 day tickets at US/IoA because imo it's all it would take us.

As we planned our upcoming Feb trip, we knew DS wanted to go to IoA. DW and I were going to go to US. We decided there was not enough to do. We'll go to IoA and probably have DS and friend meet us at Margaritaville, which intrigues (sp) me more then the park.

 

[YoHo]

Again, I've never been there, but my impression is that IOA succeeds NOT, because it is a thrill park, but becuase it was built to the same standards that Disney uses and was a complete park which Animal Kingdom is not.

I love animal kingdom, but I wish it had more to do And the Deal with Rainforest sucks.

On the other hand, I think JeffJewell will agree with me that AK has a nice laid back feel to it.

 

[daannzzz]

I like AK and IOA about equally. I probably rode the same amount of "rides" at both parks. Not as muchinto coasters as I used to be. As far as themeing goes, IOA is really, really close. The blew it on only a couple of things and I like it better than DCA.

 

[JeffJewell]

I think JeffJewell will agree with me that AK has a nice laid back feel to it

...absolutely. We love AK; particularly after noon when it just gets deader and deader; crowded parks are the exact opposite of a vacation, for us (that's one of the reasons I'm so personally cranky about the latest WDW budget cuts: we used EE and E-nights and late shows and parades to avoid whatever crowds we could. Best laid plans...).

I could spend a potentially infinite amount of time in AK, just wandering back and forth between the Oasis, the Jungle Trek, Pangani Trail, and the Safari; shooting roll after roll of film. I always thought the best parts of AK were where they took the theme "zoo" and maxed it out.

Jeff

PS: It sucks that they closed Flame Tree.

 

[JeffJewell]

I just don't want that to become the focus of WDW.

...okay, not the focus of WDW, but a fifth gate that happens to be a coaster park couldn't be called the "focus of WDW." If you're not a fifth-gater, adding, say, one world class thrill ride per park, wouldn't make thrills the "focus of WDW" would it?

But expanding along that path, even if only tentatively, would create a Disney presence in a market that guests now have to leave property to enter. You wanna keep guests on-site an extra day, you've got to take their IoA day, somehow: most of them didn't get any more vacation time, this year.

In this case, I think the fifth gate is the way to go. Already on these boards I've advocated a separately ticketed mini-gate of thrill rides. I believe there's a lot of upside to such a park, so long as they spare no pixie dust themeing the third party ride mechs.

Jeff

 

[raidermatt]

We enjoyed AK, and while of course I would like it to have had more from day one, I understand the strategy of opening earlier than that. It mitigates risk, starts the revenue stream, and allows for changes to plans before its too late.

I agree that the contract with Rainforest stinks, at least from my personal perspective. Maybe Disney makes more money this way, but it would be nice to have some "real" restaurants inside.

I would like to see a 5th gate provided:

1. MK/Epcot/MGM are properly maintained, and continue to be tweaked with a new ride/attraction every so often.
2, AK continues to be developed at faster rate than the other three more mature parks. (Of course, when the consensus is that it is mature, the rate can slow)

I'm ok with the 5th gate being opened DCA/AK/MGM style, meaning its not "complete" when it opens. Its more important to me that whatever it does open with is done with quality and theming in mind. The fact that Disney already has three mature parks in the area is what allows them to use this strategy. The fact that the DL resort only had one mature park is a big reason why DCA caught so much flak.

Should it be a "thrill" park? It could be slanted a little more in that direction, but not a Six Flags with great theming and service. It should still have plenty of things that the whole family can do together, and shows and parades should still be plentiful.

Since this discussion has gone all over the place anyway... If a 5th gate were opened, what them would you like to see?

 

[Captain Crook]

Great post. You think very clearly & express yourself admirably.

Regarding a new Park, I will part ways with my friend scoop here and say that I feel an IOA or thrill type Park could be very Disney-doable, but I don't think it could be a true 5th gate. Because of the shift in demographic for such a Park, I think it would probably be a water park-esque type venue, meant as an offering to the thrill demographic to keep them on site or to placate the family teenagers. But because it wouldn't be a full gate I think it would need to be located near one of the full gates (Epcot has been mentioned).

 

[hopemax]

I really hope that WDW does not create a park where the majority of rides cannot be ridden or experienced by any age, height, or size.

Out of curiosity, Scoop...if a park had 25 attractions with 11 of those being "rides" the rest being shows, and exhibits. And of the 11 rides, only 4 were without some kind of height/size requirement, would that be acceptable?

 

[All Aboard]

I'm not suggesting that Disney do a "thrill park", although I don't know that it's all that bad of an idea. My use of IoA as an example was more along the lines that YoHo has suggested. It's an immersive park, extremely detailed in every way and it's filled with E ticket attractions. And there really is so much more to it than the thrills. But, I know everyone does not see it that way. In any event, I prefer a day at IoA to a day at AK. I think that means alot considering that I'm pretty much a major league homer myself.

Hopemax, out of curiousity, are you describing a particular park? I know I referenced 4 attractions at IoA that were too "big" for my daughter, but there are another 4 attractions there with height limits. She's just tall enough for those.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

"Hopemax, out of curiousity, are you describing a particular park?"

My guess is she's talking about DCA. Eleven rides: Limo, Soarin', Grizzly, Golden Zephyr, Jumping Jellyfish, Orange Stinger, Mullholland Madness, Sun Wheel, Screamin', Carousel, Maliboomer. Only Limo, Zephyr, Sun Wheel, and the Carousel have no limits.

My answer would be a conditional yes. Out of twenty-something attractions (I don't count the games as attractions, and I'd combine the tortilla and bread into one attraction, and only because of the free samples), only seven have height restrictions. My daughter reached 42" before she was 5, and could go on everything except Screamin, Maliboomer, and Orange Stinger. If I had a child or children under 42", and especially if I was only going to the DLR for 2 days or less, then I'd say no.

Regarding opening new parks versus expanding old ones, one of the problems with Epcot is that it is too hard to expand. Granted, anyone one of us could come up with a dozen or more cool ideas, but the way Epcot is structured, each new idea would have to be sponsored. Disney couldn't, say, fund a ride for Japan without the risk of France saying, "We should get a new movie, and you should pay for it, since you paid for Japan's ride." The Studios is also hard to expand because of its location and layout, and Magic Kingdom needs it the least.

 

[YoHo]

I would not be adverse to a 5th gate as the Captain has described it. (although I can't fathom how preciesly it would work) I would prefer that they work it in to existing parks as they did with ToT and RnRC. Epcot's Futureworld would be easy to expand IF they changed the concept from one sponser per pavilion to one sponser per pavilion Element. For instance, Compaq pays for the Ride itself, General Dynamics pays for some B or C ticket attraction in the pavilion, Northrop pays for something else etc. Alternatly, Disney should take over costs of ride contstruction itself and have sponsers pay for other aspects, reducing sponsership cost (more sponsers) while increasing Disney's control.

Contrary to my above statement, Epcot should be left out of the thrill ride additions unless you count things like test track and mission space.

MK should Get another mountain. MGM should get something over in the NY city backlot area. AK should have Animal Kingdom.
It would be much better to take that IOA day away with the existing parks rather then build another one to do it.

 

[All Aboard]

AK should have Animal Kingdom.

Now, that's funny!

 

[YoHo]

DOH!

It should be AK should have Beastly Kingdom.

I type faster then I think I guess

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

YoHo, you are indeed an honest man.

I would have been tempted to edit my post and then asked gcurling just what the the heck he was talking about!!

I said tempted, I might not have done it!!

 

[Douglas Dubh]

"Epcot's Futureworld would be easy to expand IF they changed the concept from one sponser per pavilion to one sponser per pavilion Element. For instance, Compaq pays for the Ride itself, General Dynamics pays for some B or C ticket attraction in the pavilion, Northrop pays for something else etc."

This might be hard to implement. I could see multiple companies bickering about their relative advertising versus their contributions or about the amount of lounge space provided, etc. I doubt you be able to convince two rivals companies to support a single pavilion; you'd have to match up companies that complement each other.

I believe multiple corporations now sponsor most of the World Showcase pavilions. When was the last time we saw expansion there?