Should DisneyWorld Build a 5th park with more emphasis on thrill rides?

[majortom1981]

The water park is TERRIBLE, and the safari would be closed by Disney. Why would they run it when they have AK and want people to go there?

Yes the water park needs rides but you fail to see it from the business side of things. Dont look at it in its current state. Dont let the six flags company hatred blind you.

Look at it if Disney bought the park. The theme park section needs minor disney changes. The Safari draws a crowd when its open so why get rid of it.

Look at it this way. Who would have thoght swamp land could have turned into wdw.

People arent looking at it from a business perspective.

 

[Champion]

I've always thought that a thrill-ride park would complete the DW landscape. Although I agree that the MK is a fantasy escape and that the current parks place an emphasis on character interaction, I don't get the same feeling about the fantasy part when I go to Epcot, AK or DS....

Although there is a certain nostalgia that goes hand and hand with the Disney experience, at least for me, I don't believe that changes, upgrades or improvements necessarily lessen the nostalgia effect...


my 2 cents,

dave

Thats because the other parks have different themes. They are not fantasy worlds, you aren't supposed to feel like you are in one.

The simple fact of this subject is this. If you want thrill rides to be built, thats great, go ahead and ask for it. But its FAR cheaper to ask for them to be built in the current parks then ask for a new park and the infrastructure needed for it to be built to have those rides in it. Remember that well done, Disney type thrill rides are extremely expensive. So is building a new park. So in a "thrill only" park you'd get somewhere around 6-8 rides for the first few years. Not that many, meaning long lines.

Or you can take those rides and place them in the existing parks. One or two in each. Or you can spread them where they need help the most.

One in MK
Two in Epcot
Three in MGM
Two in AK

This would cost less money, as well as spread the crowds in the existing parks and help "complete" the parks. AK still needs a couple more attractions to make it a full day park for everyone, and most everyone agrees that MGM needs help.

This doesn't even take into account that you'd be able to have a bigger budget per ride if you weren't spending it on building the park.

Yes the water park needs rides but you fail to see it from the business side of things. Dont look at it in its current state. Dont let the six flags company hatred blind you.

Look at it if Disney bought the park. The theme park section needs minor disney changes. The Safari draws a crowd when its open so why get rid of it.

Look at it this way. Who would have thoght swamp land could have turned into wdw.

People arent looking at it from a business perspective.

Actually I AM looking at it from a business perspective. And it would be a terrible business decision. You are the one that isn't looking at it that way. I don't hate Six Flags. They have good attractions, and they do what they do decently well. I don't expect a Disney experience from them, and I definetly don't get one. However, they do have good thrill attractions in their parks.

Buying the park and land would be in the billion dollar range, probably more.

Water park needs work. Ok, lets call it $50m in improvements.

The AMUSEMENT (its a Six Flags, they aren't theme parks) park needs theming, renovations, updating, infrastructure. Not to mention that things that Disney doesn't have the right to would have to be changed/removed. This would cost anywhere from $100-500 million dollars. There are entire sections of the park that would have to be rethemed.

The safari wouldn't stay. Ok, it makes money. Thats great. But Disney as a corporation does not want people driving around for an hour with animals. They want them flying down to WDW and spending an entire day of their vacation in Animal Kingdom. Thus making the company much more money then it did on the safari. Once again, they would close it.

As for the size, isn't like 75% of the remaining land a wildlife refuge? And whenever Six Flags wants to expand at all, the locals have a cow? Ever wondered why they don't have a hotel? Because the locals won't let them.

 

[snakeislandboy]

Sounds cool, but from what I've read the trend in amusment parks is moving away from the thrills and closer to what Disney is already doing. I'm not sure why Disney would would go in the opposite direction. I think there is much room for improvement and innovation at the current parks.

 

[hokielutz]

Should Disney build a park based on only thrill rides? No, of course not. All your eggs in one basket doesn't work. Just look at IoA.

As much as I would like a thrill park... it doesn't fit the success model that Disney uses. If they built it... I would go. But Disney has had a good rep of creating rides that are diverse and provide some appeal to all age groups. This makes it family friendly... as well as attracting the younger "single/justmarried" adults and seniors. Even if they theme these thrill rides like they currently do... it might not have a lasting appeal. Each park has its own overall theme... and this would be challenge number one to imagineering and management. Create a park with a good theme. Then you'd work in the attractions.

Not to mention, Disney is beyond competition with Universal at this point. They've crushed them badly. Just look at the facts to see that even Universal knows this is true. They are trying to pull a few more people with HP, and spending boatloads of cash to do so.

Actually the figure that was quoted in a news paper article a few weeks ago. ($120 to $160M) really doesn't hold a candle to Disney's capital spending power. It may be the biggest thing for them since original construction was finished for IoA.... but this would not elevate the universal parks to equals with Disney.

But the thing about Potter is ... is it really a timeless series? Is it the kind of thing that will draw people when there are no new movies or books? I'd say no. Potter is popular now, sure. But thats with a book and/or movie every year to keep it fresh.

I think a HP attraction or two would be neat... but I don't know if a whole park or land could stand the test of time either. And this brings me to a point I have been making for some time. Investment of capital into the park is great, but a lot more investment would need to be made over time for upkeep and establishing "timeless classics" that they could lean on. Timeless classics is the key. That will keep people coming back for ages and as adults, they will remember their experiences from their childhood. And want to go back to experience it all over again. Universal is essentially a new kid on the block, (NKOTB - when's the last time anyone has heard of that group?) So its hard to say what will be remembered down the line. But most of their attractions are based on hollywood movies. Some will be classics... but do they really make a good basis for theme parks?
Disney has a leg up in this department since they started out in animation and storytelling. They created their own classics through the incorporation of fairy tales into film and animation. Now a-days.. every child knows about Pooh, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Dumbo etc... and they get to experience it at a park. So Disney keeps getting a new additions to its audience every year.

Universal has to purchase license rights to have these movies and likenesses on display in their rides. These movies most likely are not shown to kids growing up... (they glom onto whatever is new in theatres) so Universal is stuck in a loop of having to change out rides every so often to keep up. Harry Potter will be another example. Its currently popular and has a fan base.... but what about the future? will it be good later on? Will new children read and watch HP like they do with classic fairy tales?
I don't know... but we'll see. Chances are it will be good for 10 years... then majority may move on from HP, unless JK Rowling writes more stories related to HP.

OK... getting off my soap box.

Great Adventure is one of the few Six Flags parks that makes a good return. No way are they going to sell it.

Yeah.... there is no way boy-king Danny Snyder will part ways with its best profitting park... especially since there are many other parks that are pulling Six Flags down and are in desperate need of upgrades/freshening/theming. Also I imagine that $30 a day parking fees is not out of the question. Its up to, what $20 right now?

As a season ticket holder who just surrendered my credit card to "The Danny' for 2007 tickets, I couldn't resist a dig at him.



Also (I know I might get flamed for this... but there is some good news that has come from this week...
I no longer am experiencing severe angina...:hurl:
Because America Finally Voted off Sanjaya!!!! :sohappy:

 

[yazmin182]

NO! Disney in my opinion is unique in that the parks are more about fantasy, fairytale, characters and being/acting like a kid.

If I want thrill rides, I'd take the hour trip to Cedar Point in Ohio.

Me too!

 

[ImaYoyo]

The reason you will never see an all thrill park in Disney is that it would not be profitable enough to provide sufficient returns. Thrill Parks (such as those owned by Cedar Fair and Six Flags) make much of their money on ticket sales and food & beverage. Disney parks make most of their money of Merchandise and Resort Sales. What kind of crowd do thrill parks attract? Primarily teens and young adults. What group spends the most money? Families with young children.

Walt Disney himself knew this from the begining, which is why he didn't build a thrill park himself. He knew that family parks would always be more profitable. And boy, was he right!

One of the best pieces of proof can be found in the Disney Institute program Team Park Challenge (If you're not familiar with DI programs, they're ways for other businesses to learn the Disney Philosophy in a team-building setting). The key to this program is building a family friendly park. Do this, and your returns will be great. But start adding too many thrills? You start to see diminishing returns.

 

[loveyloo2]

Not of much interest to me...

because I don't like scary rides. However, I think it sounds like a neat idea...The Land and rides could be themed after some of Disney's scariest villans...Malificen't Fury, etc...

:shrug:

 

[jmani56]

No offense, but the 5th park discussions are getting old. No family can fit in everything at Disney into a vacation as it is, why add another park?

I also don't like the assumption that if an attraction is not a thrill ride, it is for kids and not adults. Look at most of the people on these forums, they are adults who enjoy slow-moving rides like Spaceship Earth the most. Those are adult rides, not un-themed roller coasters.

If you want thrills at Disney, they are already there. There is no need to build a 5th park that families can't take their kids or grandparents to.

 

[majortom1981]

Also building a new park from scratch would cost an awful lot of money. especially if its for thrills.

Arent the estimates for everest and tot stating in the $100 million range for each attraction?

Would disney have the money to clear all that land and build attractions like that ?

 

[psifreek27]

first off let me just start by saying that people here take certain terms beyond literal.

Im pretty sure NOBODY even the OP wants to see a "Thrill park" like six flags at Disney. What im sure everyone would want is a new fun fantasy themed park with design elements we have yet to see and the same great tactics disney has always had for rides such as story/characters/innovation applied to thrill rides in certain areas of this new or existing park.

It is impossible to say "Disney crowds do not want thrill rides..." if this was true than the most popular rides in every disney park would not be built.

"Thrill" in disney has several definitions...the closest thrill Epcot has is Test Track...while MK has Space/Big Thunder/Splash Mountain...MGM...RnRC and ToT...AK EE and Dinosaur...all these would be considered "Thrill rides" in disney and they are all somewhat different from each other.

Disney would make serious bank on a theme park that played up the "thrills"
for the teen's/adults and less of the "dark ride/video screen"

Disney is smart enough that w/e they do will be amazing.

BTW im not necessarily saying Disney should build a new park...but they should add more "thrill" attractions to AK/MGM/EPCOT... MK just needs a new space mountain...thast park will never heavily change

 

[MaXXimus]

No such thing as too much Disney... I vote for WDW to buy the entire state and make it one huge park. More parks mean more visits to see everything so no need for me to go to the Jersey Shore

 

[wbt06]

i am not saying it sould be done but i am a collage student who could never get a friend of mine to go to disney. if i tell them lests go to bush gardens they are all for it. people keep saying that the rides at disney are diverse and everyone loves the slow moving rides but it is just not true. the majority of teens do not want to ride a slow moving dark ride. the teen group needs something to keep them comeing back. yall keep saying go to ioa but would disney really want theat wdw has be striving to keep people on property on there trips. people also cant say that this will not be popular becouse a family can go on vacation and the adults can go to mk and the teens can go to the thrill park. this actually doubles ticket sales. i dont think it is needed now but eventually disney will have to come up with something. rides like space mountain and btm are no longer thrill rides to teens.

 

[ImaYoyo]

i am not saying it sould be done but i am a collage student who could never get a friend of mine to go to disney. if i tell them lests go to bush gardens they are all for it. people keep saying that the rides at disney are diverse and everyone loves the slow moving rides but it is just not true. the majority of teens do not want to ride a slow moving dark ride. the teen group needs something to keep them comeing back. yall keep saying go to ioa but would disney really want theat wdw has be striving to keep people on property on there trips. people also cant say that this will not be popular becouse a family can go on vacation and the adults can go to mk and the teens can go to the thrill park. this actually doubles ticket sales. i dont think it is needed now but eventually disney will have to come up with something. rides like space mountain and btm are no longer thrill rides to teens.

But you hit the nail on the head there, it might double ticket sales (which it wouldn't, but for arguments sake, we will say it would) but Disney does not make money off of ticket sales. Why do you think there is a 2 dollar difference between a 5 day and 6 day, and even less to add days from there? Teens do not bring money into parks. Look at Six Flags and Cedar Fair. These companies are posting TINY profits compared to Walt Disney World, even though they collectively own more parks. Teens do not bring in revenue like families do. The average teen will buy no souvies, spend as little as possible on food, and maximize ride time. The average family will sit down for a nice meal, buy the young ones useless crap they don't need, and stay in nice resorts. Familes = $, teens = headaches.

 

[slappy magoo]

Eh, if I had any pull, I'd have more thrill rides built within the existing parks.

 

[hokielutz]

Eh, if I had any pull, I'd have more thrill rides built within the existing parks.

Yep.... add to the existing lineup in the parks as much as possible and rebuild Space Mtn for a more thrilling ride.

 

[majortom1981]

What I was saying is that it might be cost effective for disney to buy another park instead of making one for thrills fro mscratch. Even on current property.

I have been seeing o nthe net what the prices of everest and tot mgiht be and I would think to make a park from scratch with those kind of rides would be extremely expensive.

 

[gettingsmaller]

I think what makes DIS so strong is the mixture. Of course, I am one of those adults who would rather ride Horizons than Mission:Space... or maybe even World of Motion instead of Test Track. To me, slow moving rides with AAs and all the special DIS touches are a huge part of what make a trip to DIS better than a trip to Six Flags (have a season pass to SF, by the way).
I DO like ToT, Test Track, etc., but I think you need those mixed in with a variety of shows and rides that smaller kids (or less adventurous BIG kids) can enjoy.
As others have pointed out, you have to consider who is going to be paying to visit a park like this. Families with small children would likely skip it altogether. Why not take advantage of the infrastructure that you already have in place in the other parks and add some thrill attractions? That way, you attract all kinds of visitors--you still get their money--and you didn't have to build an entire park for it.

On a more personal note, I am actually sad when I consider the new rides that have been built and realize that they are all thrill rides (that I can think of): Exp Ev, TestTrk, M:S, R'n'R. While these may be fun, I long for the magical, unique rides that parents can ride with their kids and both can enjoy... Well, I've always been partial to the dark rides... oh, well.

 

[gbruenin]

Before another gated-park was built, I'd rather see all the somewhat abandoned-in-place infrastructure put back into operation. Doesn't necessarily need to be the former attraction, but something more than a meet-n-greet. Areas such as the Diamond Horseshow Review, Skyway buildings, 20,000K area, River Country, Discovery Island, Sounds Dangerous and Theater buildings at MGM, the rest of Innoventions (can't believe how much is walled off), etc. Not to mention all the restaurants that no longer operate.

Gary

 

[LudwigVonDrake]

Well...I heard from a bus driver....:lookaroun

 

[hokielutz]

Before another gated-park was built, I'd rather see all the somewhat abandoned-in-place infrastructure put back into operation. Doesn't necessarily need to be the former attraction, but something more than a meet-n-greet. Areas such as the Diamond Horseshow Review, Skyway buildings, 20,000K area, River Country, Discovery Island, Sounds Dangerous and Theater buildings at MGM, the rest of Innoventions (can't believe how much is walled off), etc. Not to mention all the restaurants that no longer operate.

Gary

I'm sure there won't be a push for new items until Iger and company accomplish their stated goals of refurb and update their current crop of rides... which seems to be what they are seriously doing now... HM, SSE, Inov, POTC, El Rio, Malestrom, Laugh, etc.