"The Curse of Expansion"

speck76

speck76

Well-Known Member
mrtoad said:
There needs to be a spread of stuff for everyone as nobody is the same and everyone has different tastes and different needs to be happy.
Click to expand...

While everyone here is entitled to their own tastes, I think this is a major sticking point with many people in these forums (mainly the very young, or the old/non-married/no kids) as they want EVERYTHING for themselves....and if it is not directly going to effect them, WDW is wasting money, being cheap, blah blah blah......

The arguement that they present it either that "Walt wanted a place where a daddy could enjoy everything with his daughter", but the arguement is so short-sighted to see that it is possible to enjoy time with your kids while THEY are being entertained (and you are being entertained by them)....also, they fail to recognize that the world has changed in the last 50 years. the other arguement is that certain types of attractions are appealing to all age groups....like omni-movers. Again, this may have been the case 25 years ago, but tastes have changed since then. Teens want bigger/better/faster....while I think smaller kids have actually gone the opposite direction. Also, people more often now want a level of interaction (like on Buzz).....it makes them feel as part of the attraction.
 
JeffH

JeffH

Active Member
cedar point verses WDW

"the fact they are only open 6 months a year" is due to the fact that the other 6 months the park would be empty(not worth keeping open) and/or snowed under. 6 months is their season, that's it. If you took Disney's best 6 months then multiplied by 2, then Disney's attendance would be staggering
 
ThreeCircles

ThreeCircles

Member
I disagree with several parts of the article. But here is the most glaring in my opinion:

The article makes a point of suggesting that WDW has grown so large that it has lost the seclusion aspect that "Walt Disney wanted to maintain."

But, I disgaree with this for two main reasons:

One, although WDW is large now, the property that is being used is kept in very good shape. The resorts are themed, except for the unsightly Swan and Dolphin, and for the most part nothing intrudes on the fantasy.

Second, an often mentioned quote by Walt would suggest that he did forsee the property growing. Why else would he say it was large enough "to hold all of our ideas."
 
speck76

speck76

Well-Known Member
Kevin Yee's articles would be more bearable if they were not written with such a jaded point of view.

The biggest problem that I have with these "activist" articles is that they are all about spreading the writers thoughts and ideas (and passing them off as both possible and the best/only option) without even trying to understand why the "current state" has occured, and what the limitations are that the park/company has.
 
wdwishes2005

wdwishes2005

New Member
JeffH said:
"the fact they are only open 6 months a year" is due to the fact that the other 6 months the park would be empty(not worth keeping open) and/or snowed under. 6 months is their season, that's it. If you took Disney's best 6 months then multiplied by 2, then Disney's attendance would be staggering
Click to expand...

cold weather+ coasters = Bad
 
mrtoad

mrtoad

Well-Known Member
I also thought the mentioning of the resorts on the property like it was the same issue that had upset Walt about Disneyland was way off base. These are themed resorts that meant to be part of the experience. It is not like these are Best Westerns or Motel or the like.

ThreeCircles said:
I disagree with several parts of the article. But here is the most glaring in my opinion:

The article makes a point of suggesting that WDW has grown so large that it has lost the seclusion aspect that "Walt Disney wanted to maintain."

But, I disgaree with this for two main reasons:

One, although WDW is large now, the property that is being used is kept in very good shape. The resorts are themed, except for the unsightly Swan and Dolphin, and for the most part nothing intrudes on the fantasy.

Second, an often mentioned quote by Walt would suggest that he did forsee the property growing. Why else would he say it was large enough "to hold all of our ideas."
Click to expand...
 
Sergeant Tibbs

Sergeant Tibbs

New Member
In my opinion Walt Disney's Animal Kingdom is in best shape. Doesn't need rehabs and after Everest, doesn't really need new rides. Besides that stupid ride that looks a carnival piece of crap, Animal Kingdom is freakin amazing. All the other parks, on the other hand, need a little help... BUT... they are getting it. So I think Disney is doing their job slowly but surely. Also, how could any1 compare an amusement park to Walt Disney World. I don't care how good CP is it doesn't compare to Disney World. Everyone knows that. :)
 
lebeau

lebeau

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
speck76 said:
Kevin Yee's articles would be more bearable if they were not written with such a jaded point of view.

The biggest problem that I have with these "activist" articles is that they are all about spreading the writers thoughts and ideas (and passing them off as both possible and the best/only option) without even trying to understand why the "current state" has occured, and what the limitations are that the park/company has.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment of Kevin's columns to a point. I wouldn't describe them as unbearable as obviously, I read them. :)

He does tend to be somewhat jaded. He's actually addressed this in some of his columns. He also definitely pushes an agenda. He loves the Magic Kingdom and dislikes MGM and AK by comparisson.

I don't know that I would read his columns as a realistic gameplan for Disney. Particularily these two, I doubt he's suggesting Disney scrap the expansion and start from scratch. I read the column(s) to be more along the lines of: "Hey, Disney, let's learn from past mistakes and be a little more forward thinking with future expansion."

Not that I pretend to speak for the author. That's just what I took away from the columns.

I posted both of the first article because it inspired some very lively and thoughtful debate at the Miceage forums. Given the discussion was focused on MGM for a good part of the thread, I thought the MGM article was worth posting.
 
S

Sherm00

New Member
Diffrence is ceder point has mostly thrill rides.. I HATE ROLLER COASTERS!!

that being said disney is more family friendly. even more so then universial too. thats is one reason they stay on top.
 
speck76

speck76

Well-Known Member
lebeau said:
I agree with your assessment of Kevin's columns to a point. I wouldn't describe them as unbearable as obviously, I read them. :)

He does tend to be somewhat jaded. He's actually addressed this in some of his columns. He also definitely pushes an agenda. He loves the Magic Kingdom and dislikes MGM and AK by comparisson.

I don't know that I would read his columns as a realistic gameplan for Disney. Particularily these two, I doubt he's suggesting Disney scrap the expansion and start from scratch. I read the column(s) to be more along the lines of: "Hey, Disney, let's learn from past mistakes and be a little more forward thinking with future expansion."

Not that I pretend to speak for the author. That's just what I took away from the columns.

I posted both of the first article because it inspired some very lively and thoughtful debate at the Miceage forums. Given the discussion was focused on MGM for a good part of the thread, I thought the MGM article was worth posting.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately......some people are not so smart, and they take these articles as the bible.

Besides, I think WDW has already spoken to future expansion...a few months ago. I think these articles tend to make a lot out of nothing.
 
lebeau

lebeau

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
speck76 said:
Unfortunately......some people are not so smart, and they take these articles as the bible.

Besides, I think WDW has already spoken to future expansion...a few months ago. I think these articles tend to make a lot out of nothing.
Click to expand...

Sure. I mean, the guy has to fill a weakly column - he's got to find something to write about ;)
 
PurpleDragon

PurpleDragon

Well-Known Member
I think those who feel WDW should focus more on new attractions are thinking in the same way the WDW management is. You are too focused on searching for reasons to bring people back, instead of remembering what brought you back every visit. It was the magic, was it not? If I'm not mistaken, part of that magic was the cleanliness, the amazing effects on the rides, and the overall escape of the WDW experience.

What ruins that for guests is delapidated rides that are in desperate need of repair, empty and abandoned attractions, trash filled eating areas, etc.... If you feel that new attractions are the only way to create repeat visitors, then you are missing the point. If someone enjoys a ride(especially a child) then they will wanna come back and ride it again sometime, hence a return visit. But if some one does not enjoy a ride, then they have no reason to return, thus new rides will have to be built to convince that person(s) to come back to WDW and pay to enter the parks again.

So IMO, WDW needs to focus more on enhancing the "Magic", than trying to enlarge the parks. I come back every year for the magic, but that magic is fading with every broken ride effect, abandoned attraction, and chipped piece of paint I see around WDW.
 
wannab@dis

wannab@dis

Well-Known Member
PurpleDragon said:
What ruins that for guests is delapidated rides that are in desperate need of repair, empty and abandoned attractions, trash filled eating areas, etc....
Click to expand...

I don't think anything is dilapidated... and the rest of your statement is a little exagurated, don't you think?

PurpleDragon said:
So IMO, WDW needs to focus more on enhancing the "Magic", than trying to enlarge the parks. I come back every year for the magic, but that magic is fading with every broken ride effect, abandoned attraction, and chipped piece of paint I see around WDW.
Click to expand...

I would like to see the numbers, and I'm sure WDW has them, but I doubt Disneyphiles like us make up a large percentage of the visitors. I dare say that a large percentage of the visitors are first timers or they come every few years. For those people, the big new attractions draw them in.
 
speck76

speck76

Well-Known Member
and how does one market "magic"?

The reason why replacement rides are built at the MK, instead of new attractions, is that the park has never (in the last 15 years) needed to add capacity......but one thing that is needed is the ability to market something tangible.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom