Eisner on "Fifth Park"

[stingrock23]

I hope no more parks are built any time soon. Firstly, they need to focus on the existing parks instead of new ones. Second, if another park was built soon, it would probably be something crappy like California Adventure or Disney Studios Paris. It would be horrible if a park like that was built in WDW. they should just try to make the current parks better.

 

[bgraham34]

yeah AK is not a park I spend much time at, at all. I only go on a few rides and skip most of the attractions. There is nothing there that realyl excites me Except the Bugs Life and Dinosaur.

 

[Raidermatt]

Purely hypothetical, but I wonder what kind of discussion we'd be having if both MGM and AK had been opened as "complete" parks, or at least brought to that point within a year or two of opening.

Looking at the attendance numbers after AK opened, I understand the argument that all it did was take visitors away from the other three parks.

But isn't it possible that's because AK just wasn't good enough or grand enough to draw new visitors, or even encourage more repeat visitors?

What if the demand IS there, but Disney just didn't deliver what was in demand?

Similar to the DCA issue in Anaheim. Folks are looking at the results and saying the "resort" idea was a bad one.

But maybe the idea wasn't bad, just the execution. What if instead of DCA, a complete, more imaginative park had been built? Would more people have come? Would the ideas for the third gate have been thrown in the bottom of the closet like they have been?

I wonder.... do you?

 

[speck76]

Purely hypothetical, but I wonder what kind of discussion we'd be having if both MGM and AK had been opened as "complete" parks, or at least brought to that point within a year or two of opening.

Looking at the attendance numbers after AK opened, I understand the argument that all it did was take visitors away from the other three parks.

But isn't it possible that's because AK just wasn't good enough or grand enough to draw new visitors, or even encourage more repeat visitors?

What if the demand IS there, but Disney just didn't deliver what was in demand?

It is possible....but I don't think that the opening of MGM can be compared to the opening of DAK.

MGM opened and was "too popular". The park could be done on a short vacation along with Epcot and MK. Universal opened within 1 year, but opened as a great failure (nothing worked, guests demanded their money back....BIG problems). Even at that, Orlando only had 5 parks, and SeaWorld already had its own following, being open since 1974. Boardwalk and Baseball was still around, but was more of a "locals" park, along with Busch Gardens.

MGM was underbuilt, but was very well done, and it filled a niche that people on the East Coast and from the Midwest had in most cases never seen. The biggest problem with MGM was it did not contain enough "floor space" to accomodate the near-Epcot attendance figures. (Keep in mind, when MGM opened, the only places that were open to the public were Hollywood Blvd, Echo Lake, and the Animation Courtyard areas...the rest of the park was restricted access.) MGM had to open the previously closed areas just to fit people in the gate. MGM did go on a major expansion within a year or two of opening, with Star Tours, Muppet Vision, and within 5 years Sunset Blvd (ToT) opening (along with a ton of show and attractions no longer around)

DAK has seen no such expansion. Asia should have been opened for the original opening, but was not. Dinorama can not compare to the expansion that MGM had seen.

If DAK had opened as a full-day park (and let's not argue here....for the general public, it is not a full-day park, and if you are an animal lover and CAN spend a full day at DAK, you are NOT the average guest) it might have fared better, OR the losses at the other parks could have been worse.

 

[Tim G]

yeah AK is not a park I spend much time at, at all. I only go on a few rides and skip most of the attractions. There is nothing there that realyl excites me Except the Bugs Life and Dinosaur.

But that doesn't mean DAK is a half day park, guess you're just no DAK person... that's all

 

[trdisneyfan]

Be careful of wishing for a 5th Park, or else you might end up with Disney's Florida Adventure. No one really likes the new park out here, and it has become the icon of failure when you don't dump enough cash into a new park. OK, it has a few good rides, but a lot of them really lack a sense of permanence, or heart for that matter.

To make matters worse, the put a coffee roasting plant at the entrance, so there is this horrible smell of burnt coffee that hits you on the way in. There is no real center/hub of the park and very little shade. It's one of those places that people go to in order to seek out individual attractions rather than enjoy the park as a whole. And from what the numbers are showing, most of the attendees are AP holders who can basically go in for free.

About the only thing I'd like to see added to WDW is a thrill-based park with well-themed coasters, drop rides, and other fast or thrilling attractions. I think it would be good to compete with IOA and it would take the pressure off Disney to convert all of their old classic rides into thrill rides, because that's certainly getting out of hand. If there is anything they can do to preserve the original heart & soul of MK and Epcot, it will be appreciated.

 

[deix15x8]

Animal Kingdom is probably the hardest park to expand that Disney has ever had. The other parks you can just keep building and fill in all the openings, but Animal Kingdom is built around the wildlife so they can't just build since all the trees have to be preserved to keep the feel of the park. If they did what happened with the other parks where every bit of land was used the park would be a full day park but it wouldn't be animal kingdom it would just be an average park. Thats why Animal Kingdom feels like the largest wdw park imo because everything has to be spread out to keep the wildlife and things can't just be built they need to be expanded to keep the proper wildlife to park ratio.

 

[speck76]

Animal Kingdom is probably the hardest park to expand that Disney has ever had. The other parks you can just keep building and fill in all the openings, but Animal Kingdom is built around the wildlife so they can't just build since all the trees have to be preserved to keep the feel of the park.

The trees there were put there, and could be moved or removed without any major issues.

When DAK opened, Asia was not much more than a big pile of dirt, and it does not look any less lush than the rest of the park now.

 

[deix15x8]

I know they planted the trees and could just remove them but the park itself is built to be in the forest. If you remove the forest to add rides it would lose the great effect tat animal kingdom has now. I love going there just to sit and relax it's so calm and soothing with the birds and trees and especially by the rocks with the water falls. Thats why to add rides they have to expand because they can't build rides right on top of each other like in the other parks.

 

[DarkMeasures]

Animal Kingdom has plenty of expansion room.
There are huge areas of prepared land just hiding out of site as well as Camp Minnie/Mickey that was listed as temporary (Lion King show might cause this land to never leave though).

Anyway, the park was built with expansion in mind.