I started thinking..........

[DisneyFan 2000]

Well, yes I do that sometimes!

Anyway, I remember reading somewhere that the "new" Disney tries to compete directly instead of being original, thus why we have MGM (USO) and AK (BGT, SW)... Now I wonder, this can't be a mistake! Two new theme parks in direct competition with rival companies! Why does Disney do this? And that takes me even further, to my next question! Will IoA be the next one to "suffer" from Disney's attitude?

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT complaing, just wondering why Disney won't think of more original themes? Will Disney's next park be thrill-oriented? (And don't give me the "Disney won't build thrill parks" sentence! It can happen)... Share your opinions!

 

[KevinETuk]

If the competition do it, do it better and stop people spending money elsewhere.

 

[imagineer boy]

Well, MGM had been in the works long before Universal announced their studio. So, its a couincidence.

As for AK, I have no clue. But I definately prefer it over Busch Gardens. It seems that BGT is really failing these last few years. With Kilimanjaro wannabes like Rhino Rally and Haunted Castle which has nothing to do with the theme, AND replaced a perfectly good Dolphin show.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

...always a dangerous thing to do!

While MGM may be a close takeoff to Universal, AK was something that Walt had wanted from the beginning. It is also very different from other parks, so I don't think any comparison comes close. While the backstage tour was derivative, there is enough uniqueness in MGM and it continues to move in a different direction from U. You don't have to compete 1:1 to surpass the competition, just do what you do better and offer more!

 

[jeanylaser031]

I started thinking

i started thinking about Mickey's Greatest Adventures on disney on ice and maybe some villians will tried to get Mickey Mouse.:sohappy:

 

[NemoRocks78]

Actually, I don't think Animal Kingdom is a big Disney-style copy of Sea World and Busch Gardens Tampa Bay at all. First of all, how could it be like Sea World, when there isn't a single thing having to do with marine animals, and Busch Gardens is more of a big coaster-thrill park with some animals. Is that like Animal Kingdom? I think not.

As for Universal Studios Florida and Disney MGM Studios, the Disney MGM Studios park was actually the thinking of Big Mike. He was the studio cheif of Paramount Pictures when Universal was thinking about building a working studio and theme park in Orlando, and Universal contacted Paramount about being a partner in the project. Paramount refused, and then shortly after Mike came to Disney, and then rushed to get the Disney MGM Studios up. The Studios then opened an entire year before Universal Studios Florida opened. Therefore, you could actually say that the Disney MGM Studios is actually a take on Universal's park.

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

So you're saying all this is a coinsidence? (sp?) I don't know.... Sounds fishy to me!

Well, MGM had been in the works long before Universal announced their studio. So, its a couincidence.

Can you prove this? I don't know why but I've got a feeling that Universal planned wayyy before Disney! Look at both parks at opening..... Universal opened quite complete while MGM was lacking attraction wise!

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Originally posted by NemoRocks78
Actually, I don't think Animal Kingdom is a big Disney-style copy of Sea World and Busch Gardens Tampa Bay at all.

Well you're right about SW. But DAK has the exact same concept as BGT. A theme park with animals!

Originally posted by NemoRocks78
The Studios then opened an entire year before Universal Studios Florida opened. Therefore, you could actually say that the Disney MGM Studios is actually a take on Universal's park.

Remeber that management know about rival's plans much earlier than we do! Maybe Disney just opened quickly a third gate?

 

[marni1971]

Originally posted by imagineer boy
Well, MGM had been in the works long before Universal announced their studio. So, its a couincidence.

Nope - Disneys Studio park only began to develop in early 1985, once Eisner, Wells and Katzenburg saw the `Great Moments at the Movies` pavillion plans for EPCOT Center. The deal was signed with MGM/UA on July 27th, 1985. Before that, in the Miller/Walker era, only the aformentioned EPCOT pavillion would be Movie orientated at WDW. Universal announced they were planing an Orlando park in 1981. THATS why Sid Sheinberg (Universasl/MCA President) was so upset, and so began the rush to open first, as covered in an earlier topic on these boards.

 

[Pixie Duster]

We have admitted to both parks being competition for our rival companies. HOWEVER, that doe snot mean we took two ideas from other companies and just slapped the name Disney on it.

AK is NOT, NOT EVEN CLOSE to a copy of Busch Gardens Tampa. They are similiar but not the same park. Busch Gardens was originally a recreation area for eomployees of the anhieser busch corp. It was a botabical garden with some animals. Busch Gardens is a thirll park with a zoo. Animal Kingdom is a THEME PARK. It is not 1 element + another element = finished product. Animal Kingdom combines these elements. The thrill elements at Busch Gardens are seperate from the animal elements. Not much theming combines the attractions with the animals, they are segregated. Disney created a theme park themed around animals. There is a distinct difference.

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Originally posted by Pixie Duster
AK is NOT, NOT EVEN CLOSE to a copy of Busch Gardens Tampa.

Hmmmm, sorry to break this to ya, but not every park with mega-coasters is a thrill park. BGT has different types of themes and it IS a theme park! Maybe the rides are different, but can you honestly say that you can't compare the two? Seems to me Disney "stole" a concept.

 

[CAPTAIN HOOK]

Originally posted by DisneyFan 2000
Disney tries to compete directly instead of being original

Didn't Disney build Disneyland before any other parks came into existance ?

 

[Disneyfalcon]

Originally posted by marni1971
Nope - Disneys Studio park only began to develop in early 1985, once Eisner, Wells and Katzenburg saw the `Great Moments at the Movies` pavillion plans for EPCOT Center. The deal was signed with MGM/UA on July 27th, 1985. Before that, in the Miller/Walker era, only the aformentioned EPCOT pavillion would be Movie orientated at WDW. Universal announced they were planing an Orlando park in 1981. THATS why Sid Sheinberg (Universasl/MCA President) was so upset, and so began the rush to open first, as covered in an earlier topic on these boards.

I can't confirm or deny this but on the Disney travel channel specials they say MGM was in the works first. They rushed to open first once Universal announced.

 

[iluvstitch]

Originally posted by TAC


My point is that Disney wants people to come to Orlando and "only do Disney." There are 4 parks, which for the typical tourist, equals 1 park per day. If Disney did not build the Studios, nor DAK, the people coming to Orlando would be thinking "I can do Disney for two days, do Universal, and even do Sea World."

Yeah, I agree that Disney wants you to "only do Disney". A lot of the travel agents at my work were saying that is why Disney offered the FairyTale package, so people would stay there 7 nights. I sell 4 and 5 day hopper passes at work, and A LOT of people don't want them b/c they only want to do WDW for one or two days and then go to Universal, Sea World, etc.

I love Universal and go there every trip, but if I had to pick one, Disney would win hands down. I would definitly choose DAK over Sea World or Busch Gardens, too.

 

[iluvstitch]

Also, I don't think Disney necessarily copied the themepark/zoo concept directly from Busch Gardens. That concept has been all over the country for a long time. There used to be a park called Wild World here in Maryland in the 70's that had that concept. I also know some Six Flags where they have an animal "drive through" thing (not that any of these parks come close to DAK). -Stephanie

 

[Little Mermaid]

I haven't been to BGT since I was a child (early 90's), but from what I remember about it, it is nothing like DAK. Aside from BGT's broken down rides, I don't really remember much of an attempt to build attractions into the animal setting. There were ride areas, and there were animal areas. Think about DAK, with Dinosaur surrounded by informative prehistoric exhibits and Kali River Rapids set among the animals of Asia exhibits. It always seemed to me, even as a little girl, that BGT was a zoo with rides. DAK is an experience...all the attractions are themed around animals or the environment.

Not to say that I don't have good memories of BGT--I can still remember getting to see the pandas on loan from China in the 80's--but I wouldn't call DAK a copy of BGT. They're very different parks and very different experiences.

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Originally posted by CAPTAIN HOOK
Didn't Disney build Disneyland before any other parks came into existance ?

Very true! I'll never forget that! But I'm talking about the 90s!

 

[BwanaBob]

Busch Gardens has more animals than DAK.

It is a MAJOR center for rehabilitation that was in place for many years before AK was built.

BG has always prided itself w/ a wide variety of animals and some of the best facilities around.

Disney has expanded on those aspects, but BG still does slightly more.

HOWEVER...DAK is unique to the theming and better tie-in with attractions. Hands down.

If it's just animals your looking for first, then thrills, then do BG.
Want both with a little Disneyesque? DAK