New park at WDW?

[Jajo]

I agree with no new parks. Not just because the established parks could all use continuous improvement, but because of overkill. 4 parks, 2 waterparks, golf courses, marketplace, several themed hotels, activities out the ying yang, add lands and areas not more parks.

 

[futurepres]

The economic downturn has obviously limited many plans with not on WDC, but numerous vacation destinations. As for WDW, if you'd like to know the amount of theme parks, water parks, resorts, and everything in between, that are scheduled to be created and in the projected time frame of which would lead to the limit of expansion on the entire property, do some research into Walt's visions of the place. Having worked in the management research and imagineering departments, it's always quite amazing when learning about what is expected. However, the timeframes for many projects have been considerably delayed.

 

[Danrol388]

I agree with no new parks for WDW yet they have plenty in there hands with what they have all ready.

But I dont think we can say that a thrill park will only attract teenagers.....My family for example is finshing up the final plans on a big family trip there will be about 15 of us and we all voted and unfortunatly the majority ended up voting for one day in IOA then head th Busch Gardens.

Those who voted for IOA and BG were two 8 year olds, most of the Fathers in the groups (ages 40-55) and 2 of the moms. This shows you that u got a great varity that want excitment and a rush.

In the long run I think a Thrill park will serve Disney well with all age groups.

 

[AEfx]

In the long run I think a Thrill park will serve Disney well with all age groups.

And I think this is a key point as to why a villians park would be successful.

Right now, Disney is trying to cater to that market by putting "thrill" rides in existing parks. Some people for some reason adamantly say Disney shouldn't cater to this crowd, but it is already; to those people I'd point out the destruction of Horizons and WoM and ask if they would have rather the "thrill" rides that replaced them where they are now, or in another park, leaving Epcot the way it should have been.

A Villians park wouldn't appeal to everyone, but all the current parks have people they don't particulary appeal to either. I would see a Villians park as such a win for WDW, and for the anti-Universal crowd, because it would keep people from going to UO. I know that if I could ride a real coaster at WDW, with superior theming, and a couple of extreme dark rides, I wouldn't need to go to UO very often at all. A nice, edgy, Villians park - like the MK only "darker" - is what WDW needs to really retain all age groups on-site, instead of many of us who currently split our time between UO and WDW because there are certain types of offerings ("thrill rides" and darker, edgier theming) that WDW doesn't really offer right now in very large quantities.

AEfx

 

[djmatthews]

The whole Disney company needs to focus on its key vlaues and origional vision. Good old fashioned family entertainment. This is what the company thrives on. Whilst I love thrill rides, Disney needs a good balance for the whole family, and I think MGM is one of the best balanced parks. Extreme thrills of R'n'R Coaster and ToT. Something for the younger kids HISTK Play Area, Bare in the Big Blue House. Family fun WWTBAMPI & Muppet Vision.

 

[trdisneyfan]

If Disney does build a villians-based park (call it Villian's Lair, possibly?), it'll be a pure business decision, and only done if they feel IOA is such a threat that they need to build something on a large scale that can compete with it.

Ok, yes, Disney is aimed at families, and a thrills-only park with large coasters wouldn't be family friendly. But WDW has plenty of stuff that's not at all aimed at young children - just look at Pleasure Island. Also, Disney has never been afraid to make their best attractions aimed at the not-so-youngsters - Indy (in DL), TestTrack, M:S, etc.

I too would like them to finish AK and add or update the other 3 parks. However, it is difficult to ignore the fact that Disney has been in a push to make most of their new E-tickets more thrill-based than theme based (ToT, TestTrack, M:S, Rocket Rods, etc), often at the expense of old classic dark rides. Hence, if the "Villians" park were to take some of the emphasis off building more thrill rides in the existing parks, I'd be all for it - especially if it resulted in the construction of more timeless, heavily-themed dark rides.

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

What about Philarmagic? That is an E-Ticket correct?

In my eyes, no matter how magical and fun Philarmagic is, it's just not an E-Ticket.

 

[LSUxStitch]

The whole Disney company needs to focus on its key vlaues and origional vision. Good old fashioned family entertainment. This is what the company thrives on. Whilst I love thrill rides, Disney needs a good balance for the whole family, and I think MGM is one of the best balanced parks. Extreme thrills of R'n'R Coaster and ToT. Something for the younger kids Bare in the Big Blue House. .

BARE in the Big Blue House...doesnt seem very disney like, not family friendly either..lol now Bear in the Big Blue House is what im sure u meant, but it still came out funny....sorry its late and im just giving u a hard time

 

[bhg469]

I would not open a park until all the current parks are brought to completion. Animal Kingdom is still half a park, at best (a fun half though), and Epcot needs more updating.

With that said, I have heard so many great things about it, I would like to see a version of Tokyo's Disney Sea down here. The idea of a Villains park has never interested me, because by necessity the villains are already an integral part of many attractions (Captain Hook is all over the Peter Pan ride, the Witch in Snow White, Ursula in Voyage of the Little Mermaid, etc., etc.). A villains park would just be over kill. A villains ride, however, would be cool, but that's a different thread.

how could you say animal kingdom is half a park? it already has more shows and attractions than MGM. now there is an incomplete park.

 

[joel_maxwell]

Why build a whole new park when they are still building Animal Kingdom

exactly my thoughts..................... they need to work on the 4 parks they have right now and get them rehabed, expanded and fixed before they start another park.

 

[TheDisneyGirl02]

I would personally like to see them add more attractions to the parks that are currently there. Why spend all of that money and build a park that isn't up to par with what Walt created? I think four parks are enough for now...in the future (after Eisner's long gone) then I think they can add a new park, but not for now.

TheDisneyGirl02

 

[Erik]

I agree that it's way premature to build a new park - but I think a Villians Park is a fantastic idea in the long term!

First of all- the "villians" theme really provides the Imagineers with some creative material. It would be the first ever amusement park of that size fully themed to the darker side of the fantasy world. I just have to believe that the creative minds at Disney would do great things with so much material. Between dark ride possibilities and some extreme thrill rides, it could be amazing.

Second - it would be a great chance to win over the teens and young adults. By themeing the park a bit darker and adding thrill rides, it would give some thrill ride seekers a place to go other than IoA (I'm 29, and I can't count how many friends tell me that they'll go back to Disney when they have kids, but for now, when they go to Orlando, they prefer IoA).

Finally - I think there is a "fun" way to do it without making it too dark or creepy and scaring away all the young ones

The thing I love most about Disney is the creativity, and this idea is just so unique, I'd love to see what those guys would do with it.

 

[Rosso11]

I'm just curious but I remember years ago when rumors of the Villains themed park first started to appear there was talk of creating an actual Villains themed version of the Magic Kingdom. Basically the Magic Kingdom would be recreated however the villains would have taken it over. So, basically we would have all of the same lands including the castle except now it would look old and decrepit, almost abandoned. Think of the beginning of Beauty and the Beast with the castle covered in vines and falling apart. We would even have many of the original rides however the Villains would have taken them over as well and would of course turn them into twisted versions of the originals with a lot more thrills. However at the end of every night there would be an updated fantasmic show where Mickey would come in and save the day. Then as you exit the park after the show everything magically changes, my guess through some kind of projection system similar to the end of Muppets 3D. The music is now happy again, everything is well lit. It feels like you are back in the original <ST1Magic Kingdom. Then the same process happens all over the next day. This park always intrigued me because the entire park would actually be built around an actual story that is played out every day. I am sure this park would never be built but I am extremely curious if anyone knows if this was actually derived by imagineers or just a bunch of Disney fans on the internet.

 

[sabian]

I agree with Lee. It would be bad business to open a new park when there are othersthat can be further expanded and improved. As much as i like Animal Kingdom, I think they should have expanded MGM and Epcot more before opening it. I believe, especially MGM, that there is room for expansion, development and improvement in the first three.

 

[Hakunamatata]

I go back and forth on this subject. Overall I am thinking a whole thempark built on the Villian theme is not a good idea. It is too restrictive. I do think that maybe a "land" in the MK or even a section in MGM would be the best place to focus on the Villians. I think a whole park based on the Villian characters would be to much "negative" focus. There is really not a whole lot of "character developement" to support the Villian park idea (i.e. alot more positive characters available than "negative" villians...) I think it would ultimately force Disney to produce Villian heavy movies which, in my opinion, I would have to strongly consider not letting my children watch. I think its pretty obvious that Disney is marketing to children in order to "grow" the money base for the future. I dont think you would find alot of parents taking their kids to villian based movies or a villian based theme park.

It would however, open up a major genra of movie animation themes for Disney. They could do stories based on Hitler, satan, mass murderers, terrorists, etc.

:drevil: :drevil:

 

[bhg469]

i always like the idea of a vilian section would be a great addition to MK. i always imagined it as a scaled down mirror image of MK with its own castle and different lands but with different lighting and themes. plus it would be a good reason to have a scarier version of the haunted mansion.

 

[CSOM]

Think about it, a family goes to WDW. One of their kids is a 15 or 16 year old boy who thinks Disney is,not to offend anyone, gay..

To me using the words "not to offend anyone" does not mean you can use the word gay with negotive connotations and make it alright. I understand where you are going with it, but wouldn't "lame" have gotten the same effect, without a disclaimer, and still not bothering anyone?

By using it in this context, you are still placing a negative connotation on the word as an adjective and that is really the problem here, whether you meant to offend or not. It's not appropriate in that context at all. I would've thought more people would've said something here.... :brick: No one would let it slide if he used "n---er" and used the disclaimer that it's not to offend...

 

[Hakunamatata]

To me using the words "not to offend anyone" does not mean you can use the word gay with negotive connotations and make it alright. I understand where you are going with it, but wouldn't "lame" have gotten the same effect, without a disclaimer, and still not bothering anyone?

By using it in this context, you are still placing a negative connotation on the word as an adjective and that is really the problem here, whether you meant to offend or not. It's not appropriate in that context at all. I would've thought more people would've said something here.... :brick: No one would let it slide if he used "n---er" and used the disclaimer that it's not to offend...

Not to offend anyone, but the word was used totally in context with the way it is used in the "teen" scene. In addition, sorry if it offends you, but the word gay was used first to mean happy, not to describe a lifestyle.....

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

One of their kids is a 15 or 16 year old boy who thinks Disney is,not to offend anyone, gay..

Uncalled for and not true. You haven't met many teens, have you?

He doesn't want to ride Snow White because it is childish and he isn't a child (what teenager does not think this?)...

You haven't met me yet have you?

 

[djmatthews]

BARE in the Big Blue House...doesnt seem very disney like, not family friendly either..lol now Bear in the Big Blue House is what im sure u meant, but it still came out funny....sorry its late and im just giving u a hard time

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Whoops!