News 'Encanto' and 'Indiana Jones'-themed experiences at Animal Kingdom

M

MR.Dis

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
Even as part of a resort, inducing more demand onto Disney's Animal Kingdom doesn't serve any positive guest experience purpose. It's the same problem. The park lacks capacity, so pulling people away from the other parks just makes the Disney's Animal Kingdom experience worse. And since the park cannot handle a whole lot more people you're not going to be pulling enough people out of the other parks to noticeably improve their experience. Nor is one ride (because Dinosaur is already full) going to keep people in the park too much longer to stop them from hopping.
Click to expand...
To follow up on your point, you do not need one attraction (that basically replaces Dinosaur) but 4 attractions. You need to expand the whole Dino footprint - expand out to the East where there is plenty of buildable land. More land, more attractions, more capacity with more experiences to make patrons happy to stay and spend their money. But do not stop there--expand Pandora, that area could use 2 more attractions and there is back lot area that this land could also be expanded (although could be an issue seeing the back side of some visuals that were made to be seen from one side). What has been discussed ad nauseam is doing something with Rafiki's Planet Watch. A very large area that could be developed into something special with another 3 or so attractions. Again expanding capacity and patron's experience. There is so much opportunity and so little desire to do anything with it.
 
Jrb1979

Jrb1979

Well-Known Member
ToTBellHop said:
Data is vital in theme park development. They manipulate data too much. The CEO wants IP so they manipulate data to show the parks need it. RoL failed and it didn’t have IP at the start. Therefore, people hate nighttime spectaculars without IP, right?
Click to expand...
Data is vital to an extent. IMO its good for finding out what people like and want in the parks as long as it's not manipulated like Disney does it. Where I disagree with it is with the whole guests need 7.3 rides a day and have waits of less than 20 minutes to be satisfied.
 
JD80

JD80

Well-Known Member
Jrb1979 said:
Data is vital to an extent. IMO its good for finding out what people like and want in the parks as long as it's not manipulated like Disney does it. Where I disagree with it is with the whole guests need 7.3 rides a day and have waits of less than 20 minutes to be satisfied.
Click to expand...

Theme parks are dynamic systems that have throughput metrics, travel times, ergonomics and many other things. Not to mention guest satisfaction scores, merch and food sales equations along with placement of services. Massively data driven.
 
Jrb1979

Jrb1979

Well-Known Member
JD80 said:
Theme parks are dynamic systems that have throughput metrics, travel times, ergonomics and many other things. Not to mention guest satisfaction scores, merch and food sales equations along with placement of services. Massively data driven.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with that. All parks use data. I just Disney goes overboard with some of it. IMO it has hurt the parks.
 
Bocabear

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
it all reads like the Animal kingdom needs more capacity...if you add new attractions you will add more capacity, but now the new attractions will draw more visitors which will add more people to the park further lowering the capacity... So what is it then> Add more attractions to balance out the park? Don't add more attractions and leave the park unbalanced because that is better somehow? It can't be both ways....
An underbuilt park is always going to have capacity issues until there are enough attractions...enough things to do...
 
Last edited:
TeriofTerror

TeriofTerror

Well-Known Member
JD80 said:
Just looking at wait times today in Animal Kingdom via Thrill-Data. All the good attractions in the park are 40+ minutes.

Dinosaur is 15m. If Dinosaur was a good attraction it would pull people away from the other attractions evening out the wait times, but it's not.

#1 issue is overall capacity in the park for sure, but Dinosaur is nearly wasted space. I think you might see a reason why It's Tough to be a Bug and Dinoland are being updated.


View attachment 747689
Click to expand...
Well, according to this NRJ is about 55 minutes, so there's clearly no accounting for taste. That was the very definition of "one and done" for me.
 
TheMaxRebo

TheMaxRebo

Well-Known Member
Jrb1979 said:
IMO instead of spending money on guest rides per day or how long waits is optimal. How about using that money and investing in capacity in the parks.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - and the updates to the Diniorama area will do that. Updating Dinosaur just is part of that larger project

Ideally they would also add a third attraction to Pandora and do something with the land behind Kali - this definitely won't "fix" the park, but it is more than just retheming Dinosaur. If that winds up being the only thing done that would be a hung mistake/misuse of funds
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Jrb1979 said:
You implied that using data tells how much capacity each park needs. That tells me that Disney believes there is enough capacity in each park.
Click to expand...
It’s an algorithm. You input different variables like desired experience (attractions per guest per hour) and visitation and you then get a capacity.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
TheMaxRebo said:
Absolutely - and the updates to the Diniorama area will do that. Updating Dinosaur just is part of that larger project

Ideally they would also add a third attraction to Pandora and do something with the land behind Kali - this definitely won't "fix" the park, but it is more than just retheming Dinosaur. If that winds up being the only thing done that would be a hung mistake/misuse of funds
Click to expand...
This project will not do just that. Inducing more demand than you create by adding just one attraction is not adding capacity because you’ll still have a deficit.
 
Jrb1979

Jrb1979

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
It’s an algorithm. You input different variables like desired experience (attractions per guest per hour) and visitation and you then get a capacity.
Click to expand...
IMO it's the stupidest way to look at it. That to me was how not to use data. Each park IMO should be getting a new attraction every 4 years.

For example, since MK just got Tron and Epcot got Guardians, then the next new attraction should be AK followed by DHS. Continue with that cycle.

All I hear is that outside of MK the reason for long waits or people leaving early is there is not enough to do. That tells me there is not enough attractions in each park. In their mind as long as each guest gets 7.3 attractions per day then the data is satisfied
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Jrb1979 said:
IMO it's the stupidest way to look at it. That to me was how not to use data. Each park IMO should be getting a new attraction every 4 years.

For example, since MK just got Tron and Epcot got Guardians, then the next new attraction should be AK followed by DHS. Continue with that cycle.

All I hear is that outside of MK the reason for long waits or people leaving early is there is not enough to do. That tells me there is not enough attractions in each park. In their mind as long as each guest gets 7.3 attractions per day then the data is satisfied
Click to expand...
The formulas used to determine capacity are not unique to Disney. Every park has a desired attractions per guest per hour and attractions per day. The only way to know what to add next is to know how you’re doing and if you’re falling short. Just putting in new rides by gut is a sure fire to create problems because you’re not looking to address your needs.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom