Parking lot at Disney's Animal Kingdom about to expand ahead of the park's new additions

G00fyDad

Well-Known Member
Bottom one. I have always speculated that they are holding on to the top one in case they decide to do another animal based area or attraction.

I'm glad they're using the bottom one. I prefer they just go ahead and do Australia in the upper area as they originally intended. Avatar land should not be built, but since they are building it they should do it in an area off to the side and out of the way.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
So you're actually saying that geeks and nerds are the only ones who want to see Avatar-land? I have no desire to see it, but that doesn't mean that those who do are moped riding nerds. Wow. :facepalm:

I took it as a suttle jab/joke nothing more

It 'twas. ;)

Partially because the most exciting thing we have to talk about at the moment regarding developments at WDW is a parking lot extension, LOL.

It also wasn't a jab at nerds/geeks specifically - hey, I am one in many circles - more a jab at Avatar and it's popularity - notice the line isn't very long. That's not to say any attraction can't be great, etc. - we'll find out - but that the demand for Avatar anything isn't very high at the moment. The first film was rather empty of anything but pretty, and only did the business it did because of the 3D tax and the fact that the "novelty" of the new generation of 3D technology meant even grandma's went to check it out - not for anything to do with the content of the film, but because of the technology. Now that 3D is waning, or at least unremarkable, the new films don't nearly have the same environment to prop them up as the first one had.

I almost juxtaposed it with a pic of the lines of folks waiting for Potter opening, LOL - maybe that would have illustrated my point better. Basically, sure, guests who come to WDW and stumble upon it may very well enjoy it - I hope I do! - but it's not likely to attract folks who have to come because they love Avatar. If Disney put that money into Star Wars instead, folks would be lining up months in advance and camping out if Disney let them. And that's no exaggeration, LOL.
 

twebber55

Well-Known Member
It 'twas. ;)

Partially because the most exciting thing we have to talk about at the moment regarding developments at WDW is a parking lot extension, LOL.

It also wasn't a jab at nerds/geeks specifically - hey, I am one in many circles - more a jab at Avatar and it's popularity - notice the line isn't very long. That's not to say any attraction can't be great, etc. - we'll find out - but that the demand for Avatar anything isn't very high at the moment. The first film was rather empty of anything but pretty, and only did the business it did because of the 3D tax and the fact that the "novelty" of the new generation of 3D technology meant even grandma's went to check it out - not for anything to do with the content of the film, but because of the technology. Now that 3D is waning, or at least unremarkable, the new films don't nearly have the same environment to prop them up as the first one had.

I almost juxtaposed it with a pic of the lines of folks waiting for Potter opening, LOL - maybe that would have illustrated my point better. Basically, sure, guests who come to WDW and stumble upon it may very well enjoy it - I hope I do! - but it's not likely to attract folks who have to come because they love Avatar. If Disney put that money into Star Wars instead, folks would be lining up months in advance and camping out if Disney let them. And that's no exaggeration, LOL.
for the record avatar was the number 1 selling blue ray the week of june 1st basically unheard of for a movie 5 years old;) not to mention the number 1 selling dvd/blue ray of all time
you might not like it but it was popular and im sure the next movie will be as well
but the bottom line is the attractions have to be done well on any IP for it to be a theme park destination...when the star tours refurb opened the line was about 30 minutes that afternoon..nothing is full proof
but this argument is old and tiring
sorry I said anything lol
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
for the record avatar was the number 1 selling blue ray the week of june 1st basically unheard of for a movie 5 years old;) not to mention the number 1 selling dvd/blue ray of all time
you might not like it but it was popular and im sure the next movie will be as well
but the bottom line is the attractions have to be done well on any IP for it to be a theme park destination...when the star tours refurb opened the line was about 30 minutes that afternoon..nothing is full proof

Well, you might want to add some context to that record, LOL - it was a bargain priced re-release that was thrown up in a standee in every Wal-mart and heavily discounted ("Avatar can credit its resurgence on the home-media sales rankings to Wal-Mart's "Value of the Day" deal that marked down the price of the film by 75%", per several media reports). It was also done on a slow week for releases, to boot. It only takes the low five digits to be the best selling Blu-ray on an average week. I bet if they put canned sardines at the front of every store and discount them 75%, you'd see them sell pretty well, too. ;)

But like you say, it's already been explained - Avatar really made little cultural impact, it's pretty much forgotten in the discourse today, the only reason the first film did the revenue it did (and it's the revenue that was king - it's not even in the top 10 of most tickets sold) was because of the 3-D tax and the big new introduction of 3-D to audiences so everyone and their grandma went to check it out during a slow box office time to begin with.

Today, it's a crapshoot when you say "Avatar" which one you are even talking about as it has the same name of a very successful children's franchise, and just about everyone you could ask would be hard pressed to name a single character, give a single quote from it, or really say anything other than "it was pretty". In short, it has no emotional or cultural resonance. Kids aren't buying Avatar toys, you can't buy Avatar lunchboxes at Wal-mart, there is no franchise to speak of.

All that said - you are correct - it's the attractions that count. The point was, there is no rabid fanbase of Avatar fans waiting for it. Even the best case scenario, Soarin' 2.0 and a boat ride, aren't going to change the game in Orlando. It gives a park that desperately needs new attractions some, but it's not going to bring folks from all over the world that are just chomping at the bit to get them some Avatar.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
I'm glad they're using the bottom one. I prefer they just go ahead and do Australia in the upper area as they originally intended. Avatar land should not be built, but since they are building it they should do it in an area off to the side and out of the way.

South America is a must for DAK to feel complete. There is room for both Austrilia and South America if they go that route. I still think the Dinoland/Dinorama/Nemo space could better be adapted to Australia. South America needs a vast expansion pad to fully represent the biodiversity.
 

twebber55

Well-Known Member
Well, you might want to add some context to that record, LOL - it was a bargain priced re-release that was thrown up in a standee in every Wal-mart and heavily discounted ("Avatar can credit its resurgence on the home-media sales rankings to Wal-Mart's "Value of the Day" deal that marked down the price of the film by 75%", per several media reports). It was also done on a slow week for releases, to boot. It only takes the low five digits to be the best selling Blu-ray on an average week. I bet if they put canned sardines at the front of every store and discount them 75%, you'd see them sell pretty well, too. ;)

But like you say, it's already been explained - Avatar really made little cultural impact, it's pretty much forgotten in the discourse today, the only reason the first film did the revenue it did (and it's the revenue that was king - it's not even in the top 10 of most tickets sold) was because of the 3-D tax and the big new introduction of 3-D to audiences so everyone and their grandma went to check it out during a slow box office time to begin with.

Today, it's a crapshoot when you say "Avatar" which one you are even talking about as it has the same name of a very successful children's franchise, and just about everyone you could ask would be hard pressed to name a single character, give a single quote from it, or really say anything other than "it was pretty". In short, it has no emotional or cultural resonance. Kids aren't buying Avatar toys, you can't buy Avatar lunchboxes at Wal-mart, there is no franchise to speak of.

All that said - you are correct - it's the attractions that count. The point was, there is no rabid fanbase of Avatar fans waiting for it. Even the best case scenario, Soarin' 2.0 and a boat ride, aren't going to change the game in Orlando. It gives a park that desperately needs new attractions some, but it's not going to bring folks from all over the world that are just chomping at the bit to get them some Avatar.
yep it went on sale and sky rocketed to number 1 for the week wonder when was the last time that happened
by your definition hello kitty is a cultural icon and would be great for a theme park land because it sells tons of stuff
everything you said about avatar is your opinion nothing about it is actually factual... and we could debate but its pointless because its been said
and your movie info is incorrect its number 2 all
Well, you might want to add some context to that record, LOL - it was a bargain priced re-release that was thrown up in a standee in every Wal-mart and heavily discounted ("Avatar can credit its resurgence on the home-media sales rankings to Wal-Mart's "Value of the Day" deal that marked down the price of the film by 75%", per several media reports). It was also done on a slow week for releases, to boot. It only takes the low five digits to be the best selling Blu-ray on an average week. I bet if they put canned sardines at the front of every store and discount them 75%, you'd see them sell pretty well, too. ;)

But like you say, it's already been explained - Avatar really made little cultural impact, it's pretty much forgotten in the discourse today, the only reason the first film did the revenue it did (and it's the revenue that was king - it's not even in the top 10 of most tickets sold) was because of the 3-D tax and the big new introduction of 3-D to audiences so everyone and their grandma went to check it out during a slow box office time to begin with.

Today, it's a crapshoot when you say "Avatar" which one you are even talking about as it has the same name of a very successful children's franchise, and just about everyone you could ask would be hard pressed to name a single character, give a single quote from it, or really say anything other than "it was pretty". In short, it has no emotional or cultural resonance. Kids aren't buying Avatar toys, you can't buy Avatar lunchboxes at Wal-mart, there is no franchise to speak of.

All that said - you are correct - it's the attractions that count. The point was, there is no rabid fanbase of Avatar fans waiting for it. Even the best case scenario, Soarin' 2.0 and a boat ride, aren't going to change the game in Orlando. It gives a park that desperately needs new attractions some, but it's not going to bring folks from all over the world that are just chomping at the bit to get them some Avatar.
lots of holes in those paragraphs but like I said its already been said
nope not popular at all read this article thought it was interesting
http://www.weather.com/travel/tourists-flock-chinas-avatar-national-park-photos-20130926

question how well do you think hello kitty would do in a theme park because its huge in merchandise?
 

Figment2005

Well-Known Member
How can it be annoying to get paid to change into your work clothes? We're not talking about roofing or road paving here. It's not like it's back breaking for Pete's sake. It's changing clothes and it's something that would be done on the clock so they would be getting paid to do it.

I know it's not a full clothing change, but every day when I get to work I have to swap out my shoes for steel-toes, put on the safety vest and wear safety glasses. I don't consider it a hassle by any means. It's not like I didn't know it was part of the job when i signed up and nobody "forced" me to do it.
That is actually false. Disney expects cast to be in costume and ready for work before clocking in.
 

draybook

Well-Known Member
So asking your employees to be ready to work when they clock in is garbage? Okay.


When it involves preparation that includes putting on complex costumes for some of them yes, it is. I'm sorry that my opinion doesn't match your beliefs. Just say
the word and I'll stop using the internet and quit going against the grain.
 

Figment2005

Well-Known Member
When it involves preparation that includes putting on complex costumes for some of them yes, it is. I'm sorry that my opinion doesn't match your beliefs. Just say
the word and I'll stop using the internet and quit going against the grain.
I think you might be misinterpreting the word costume. All cast wear costumes, and are expected to have them on before clocking in. The folks that wear the character costumes be them face or furry, do so on the clock.
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
So after those
South America is a must for DAK to feel complete. There is room for both Austrilia and South America if they go that route. I still think the Dinoland/Dinorama/Nemo space could better be adapted to Australia. South America needs a vast expansion pad to fully represent the biodiversity.
I would like both North and South America along with Australia. I don't know how they would get it all in but there is land outside the existing boarder that could be included.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
South America is a must for DAK to feel complete. There is room for both Austrilia and South America if they go that route. I still think the Dinoland/Dinorama/Nemo space could better be adapted to Australia. South America needs a vast expansion pad to fully represent the biodiversity.

I would like to see Dinoland loose the carnival attractions and be turned into a properly themed dinosaur area. I think Dinosaur is a great ride (when properly maintained) so it would be nice to have a whole land that matches it in quality.
 

Tom

Beta Return
That's garbage. Anything I do for my company I do on the clock. That's a pretty garbage policy they have in place.

I'm a general contractor, and all employees of ours, and of our subcontractors, are expected to arrive for work with all of their tools and all OSHA- and Company-Required clothing on.

As discussed earlier, it seems as though Disney realized a while back that they could require this of Cast if they let them take their costumes home.

Entertainment cast is a completely different story. They can't take anything home (except for their personal spanks, tights, etc), and clock in before heading to make-up, hair and wardrobe.
 

Tom

Beta Return
I would like to see Dinoland loose the carnival attractions and be turned into a properly themed dinosaur area. I think Dinosaur is a great ride (when properly maintained) so it would be nice to have a whole land that matches it in quality.

I agree. It's far too silly, and dinosaurs are popular enough among children (especially boys), and even many adults, that a more serious tone could be taken. Dinoland was obviously thrown together as a way to fill up more real estate cheaply before opening, and it's time to do it right.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
So after those two spots are filled can Animal Kingdom expand anymore?

Here is the map of that area from the RCID master plan. Evenything within Savannah Circle (the un-colored area) is already considered part of the park so would be the first place used for expansion. The plot behind Asia is pretty big, almost half the size of the entire rest of the park minus the safari. The red area to the north is considered suitable for construction. This currently holds tree farm and
Horitculture Center. They could possibly move the tree far to land that is less suitable for construction and use this for expansion, although I don't know if they would ever do this. Next best area for expansion would be the light green area to the west since this land is considered "marginally-suitable" for construction. Dark green area to the east would be the least likely for expansion since this area is considered un-suitable for construction.


ak2.jpg
ak1.jpg
 

Tom

Beta Return
Here is the map of that area from the RCID master plan. Evenything within Savannah Circle (the un-colored area) is already considered part of the park so would be the first place used for expansion. The plot behind Asia is pretty big, almost half the size of the entire rest of the park minus the safari. The red area to the north is considered suitable for construction. This currently holds tree farm and
Horitculture Center. They could possibly move the tree far to land that is less suitable for construction and use this for expansion, although I don't know if they would ever do this. Next best area for expansion would be the light green area to the west since this land is considered "marginally-suitable" for construction. Dark green area to the east would be the least likely for expansion since this area is considered un-suitable for construction.


View attachment 56963 View attachment 56964

I agree with your assessment.

I don't see them moving general property infrastructure or long-established support areas, like Horticulture, for expansions. The master plan for property has been in place for a long time, and all of these considerations were given by people far smarter and more forward-looking than anyone on payroll today.

There's no doubt that the empty plot behind Asia is the next, and possibly last, expansion area for DAK. As you said, MAYBE to the west, but then they'd be encroaching on the Lodge and the private properties just across the property line (granted, Africa is also VERY close to the property line already).

And given that we're seeing first hand what it takes to build something on Marginally Suitable land (Avatar), the costs of building on Unsuitable land are likely unjustified.
 

draybook

Well-Known Member
I'm a general contractor, and all employees of ours, and of our subcontractors, are expected to arrive for work with all of their tools and all OSHA- and Company-Required clothing on.

As discussed earlier, it seems as though Disney realized a while back that they could require this of Cast if they let them take their costumes home.

Entertainment cast is a completely different story. They can't take anything home (except for their personal spanks, tights, etc), and clock in before heading to make-up, hair and wardrobe.


That's great. However, I work for a Fortune 500 company that doesn't require us to have our Osha or company required gear on until we clock in.

Whatever you practice isn't going to change how I think about work related issues being paid for. It's no biggie that we don't agree.
 

draybook

Well-Known Member
I think you might be misinterpreting the word costume. All cast wear costumes, and are expected to have them on before clocking in. The folks that wear the character costumes be them face or furry, do so on the clock.


No, I believe that ANY work done that is company related should be done on the clock.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom