speck76 said:
IOA has NEVER had good attendance......it is not about repeat visitation, as not that many people have been there in the first place. In the year 2000, considered the best year ever in Orlando tourism, the park had just over 3million guests....less than seasonal parks like Cedar Point and Kings Island.
When the park was BRAND NEW, people were not interested.
/sigh
Can't you see past IOA, Speck? I never said it did. However, people are satisified with one visit to IOA and don't feel the need to come back year after year. Not all of those people pounced on the park when it opened. Regardless, you are making arguments against things I did not say. IOA is not the be all, end all park. And, as I and others have pointed out, IOA is not a "thrill" park. Two moderately exciting roller coasters don't qualify it as a "thrill" park.
speck76 said:
But could Disney create this "Disney Thrilling Experience park" you speak of and actually have it be a success.
The rides you mentioned were all huge investments.....how many of these rides would need to be built in a park to have it not be a half-a$$ed effort? 10, 12? So now, you are looking at (just for the main rides) over a $1Billion investment, not including the park itself, and all of the supporting attractions and infrastructure.....so, Disney builds a $2Billion park for a market that "could" exist.
Who knows if Disney could have it be a success. Not I and not you. And again, you are spouting useless figures. Disney could have an amazing park with a half-dozen of those rides because a) thrill rides have great re-ride potential, and b) the park would not operate in a vaccum it would simply be a part of the resort.
speck76 said:
Doesn't a thrill park have an even narrower target audiance than something non-thrilling? Currently, anyone can ride the majority of rides at WDW, it is up to them if they want to or not. If you build intence attractions, suddenly, it is not a choice. MS is a good example....not everyone can ride that attraction. So the ride is already limited in that way....so then, after that, the decision of "do I want to ride this or not" comes into play......If only 80% of the visitors CAN ride the attraction, and only 90% of those WANT to ride the attraction, the size of your audiance has already been limited.
This is what you just don't get. By designing for "everyone" they inherently loose the interest of a large group. Again, this definition of "everyone" seems to be toddlers/pre-schoolers and elderly people. That group has VERY little at WDW to do right now, and most would say that NOTHING at WDW qualifies as a true thrill right now.
speck76 said:
I am not saying every attraction should be for every person, I do believe in "something" for everyone, not "everything" for everyone.
Well, right now there isn't "something" for those people. There are a few rides Disney has shoehorned into the parks to appeal to them, but it hasn't been enough.
speck76 said:
Isn't a more diverse park better.....if one can go to a single place, and enjoy both thrills, and relaxing attractions or shows......doesn't that make a more complete experience?
No. It can make for a disjointed one, actually. There are already FOUR parks to serve that purpose. Why make a fifth one that serves EXACTLY the same audience?
Also, there are many young and older people, and everyone in between who loves thrilling rides. And no one says this park can't have shows, etc. - just that the bar would be higher for the inensity of experience provided.
speck76 said:
It "could".....there is no "would". The country as a whole was on a theme-park building spree in the late 60's and early 70's....Why? The baby boomers were coming of age....late teens, early twenties....a huge amount of people in this "target market". So many parks were opened at the same time as WDW, or within a few years....
...
Thanks for the history lesson, Speck. But again, spouting the mistakes of others is nothing about Disney. Yes, I think a decently done park aimed at a more mature audience COULD do well. I can't garuntee anything - and neither can you. Can you PROVE Disney couldn't do it?
speck76 said:
By building a thrill park, what are they bringing to the area? What is it that East Coast residents really want, and can't get ANYWHERE on the east coast, that a Disney thrill park would bring to them?
A type of experience unavailable elsewhere. A park that would serve as the "weenie" to attract people to the WDW resort and give the other parks chances they wouldn't normally do. Why are you so limited in your thinking?
speck76 said:
AEfx said:
It's just like when people say, "a fifth park wouldn't work because DAK didn't increase attendance". To me, that's like saying you run a restaurant that has six types of steak and you wonder why if you add a seventh type of steak to the menu more people don't come - and in fact it just cannibalized the sales of the other six types of steak. It's pretty obvious - the restaurant is offering something new, but not different. Therefore, it didn't attract a new clinetele, like adding more variety like chicken or fish to the menu would. DAK offered smiliar entertainment to the existing parks, just with a different theme.
If only it was that simple
It is that simple, Speck. DAK offered nothing new in Orlando - it was aimed at the same target audience as the existing parks. It didn't convince anyone that wasn't already a Disney park person to come to Orlando.
That's why it makes no sense when people make the argument that DAK is evidence that WDW couldn't use another park. Anyone that expected DAK to broaden the appeal of WDW hasn't thought it through. Offering more of the same isn't going to bring anyone who wants something different.
speck76 said:
But why would this make any sense? It would only be 1 park to appeal to this market. Would enough people come to Orlando, with all of the expense involved in a long distance trip, for 1 park, if the other parks are not of their interest? If they are not coming now (which is what you are saying......the guests are not people that would currently visit Orlando due to the current makeup of the attractions) 1 park, that is all it will take, and they will suddenly want to spend a ton of money to visit this city that they were never interested in before....and they would have nothing else to do, as nothing else is of their interest.
No, that's not what I said, Speck. I said they had the PERCEPTION that it was a kiddie place. Many of those people do not give WDW the chance right now because they believe everything here is aimed at small children. While the "thrills" at WDW aren't that great right now, there are many attractions people would enjoy if only they gave them a chance. I guess I have more confidence in the parks than you do - they just need a reason to come and give it a chance.
I can give you a great example. I love the GMR - one of the most magical experiences ever created, IMHO. There was a large group of, well, I don't know how to describe them but big, scary, biker dudes in line behind me. I talked to a few of them in line, and they told me they came for RnR and ToT and thought GMR was a "thrill" ride too. I explained to them no, it was slow moving, but a really cool ride and they decided to stay in line. They sat right behind me, and they had so much fun - they loved the gangster scene, and I swear one of them got a tear in their eye in Oz. Here are people that would have never experienced that ride unless they came to MGM for those "thrills" - if someone had told them about the GMR as they were planning their trip and those minor "thrill" rides weren't there to draw them in they would have never come.
The numbers you give for IOA are interesting - but again your statistics fail to take into account practicalities. How many UNIQUE visitors would be a really interesting number to have. For instance, most people who go to WDW spend more than one day at the MK, meaning they are being counted multiple times in that "visitors" number. Many of those people go over to IOA for just a day to do the rides because it's the closest they can get to a more "thrilling" experience. Statistics are usless if you just use them as evidence and don't actually analyze what they mean - and what they don't.
speck76 said:
It is not like the current parks are being overrun by thrillrides either.....The MK has added SGE, Wishes, Philharmagic, Buzz, Timekeeper, redone the Tiki Room, added the Aladdin Spinner, added (and got rid of) the Lion King show and AE, and redone toontown in the last 10 years, they have not added a single "thrill ride"....the last thing even close was Splash Mt.....which is very gentle.
You are talking about the MK, but ignoring all the other parks. MK hasn't had any single, large-scale investments in years.
Look at all the capital investments at the other parks. MGM has built ToT and RnR, most recently adding a "thrilling" stunt show. Epcot has added Test Track, M:S, and Soarin' (which has a broad range of appeal but with the heights and simulation involved can be rather intense). AK is finally making it's first real addition and...it's a roller coaster.
It's very clear that's what Disney's goal is. They want to appeal to the wide range of people who want more intense attractions.
If people don't want to go to this fifth gate they still have four parks to keep them happy. Right now, there is a large market that WDW simply doesn't have enough concntrated attractions for. You seem to disagree as to the value of this market, but I think offering more variety can be nothing but good for WDW. I don't drink, but I don't begrudge Pleasure Island being there. I don't understand why people who don't enjoy more intense rides are so dead set against other people getting something at WDW geared toward them as well.
/shrug
It's clear you don't agree with my opinion, and that's fine. But regurgitating statistics from Google and telling me your perception of the history of theme parks in America isn't going to change my opinion and personal experience that there are a lot of people out there that would enjoy WDW if only they gave it the chance. Travel is picking up everywhere, and WDW could add itself to the destination list for many who ruled it out long ago. You keep saying "it hasn't been done before...it hasn't worked before" well, that's because it wasn't done, and done right. If Walt had listened to people with that attitude, Disneyland would have never been built in the first place.
AEfx
