Creative imbalance between the parks

[CaptainAmerica]

I thought about this when reading the Rivers of Light and Avatar threads, and it hit me that there are varying degrees of application of the principle that "quality will out" in the four WDW theme parks. Animal Kingdom seems to be leading the way in that everything they do (since Dinoland) is top quality. Even something as simple as the new Harambe quick service area has a remarkably immersive look and feel. The opposite end of the spectrum would be Future World and most of Hollywood Studios. For a simple illustration of my point, picture something as generic (and awful) as the ABC Commissary from DHS plopped somewhere in DAK. World Showcase and most of the Magic Kingdom fall somewhere in between the extremes.

My question, then, is "why?" At some point up the chain, the people making decisions for Animal Kingdom have the same bosses as the people making the decisions for Hollywood Studios. If Disney were shooting for a "B" theme park experience, I would expect them to do a consistent amount of "B" work. Instead, they seem to have fallen into a pattern of some A+ work mixed in with some C- work. Thoughts?

 

[JIMINYCR]

It comes down to how much profit will be made up in the parks after rebuilding. Theres a difference in where they consider the need is and what the value of spending those dollars are getting them in return. AK has needed more done to draw guests in and to keep them there longer. Thus recouping the money thats been spent, as guests spend more bucks on property. DHS has had needs but the huge expenditure needed for rebuilding hadnt shown as big a return to Disney bean counters. AK's projects were approved first because it has a greater need.

 

[Brad Bishop]

I think Animal Kingdom also just looks better because of "Natural Beauty". The place is crammed with plants and that makes a HUGE difference on the perception.

I saw someone's idea for remaking Epcot's FW (don't remember if it was Disney floated idea or someone else) where they redid it and it was all very green. Instead of big, open concrete spaces you had trees everywhere and curvy little paths to get between places.

Just because AK looks better because of all the growth doesn't mean you don't have a point. My guess is that Epcot is basically "We don't care - just have a festival and people will come." HS almost feels like the step-child of the parks. As if they never tried and it wasn't going to start now.

 

[marni1971]

Remember DAK has colossal budget cuts. The rot set in during the mid 90s.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disney's Animal Kingdom is creatively lead by an individual who is emotionally attached to that project. Rhode understands the game and knows how to get what he wants. Who is the creative lead that is really committed to Future World or Disney's Hollywood Studios? Those areas have nobody to fight for them, someone whose career is built around those areas being amazing. The Magic Kingdom is helped by being so tied into the singular brand image that has emerged over the years.