Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Make it a new, different and evolving experience. The parks are not museums. >> I think they actually do this to some degree - they do constantly add new small things, or new shows, etc. The problem with WDW these days is that what they're adding isn't very remarkable - it doesn't create much of a buzz. Harry Potter - that created major buzz. I doubt very much if a new coaster based on Snow White is creating much buzz outside of the Disney Fan community.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^ I agree totally. And though not museums, I do think that some older, original shows should be kept for reasons of history and legacy, but of course, kept up, and given the newest technology for their presentation.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper But do they need buzz at one park or do they need buzz for the entire resort? While they were not adding anything significant at the Magic Kingdom they've been pretty busy at other areas of property and that is what I'm getting at. Animal Kingdom in and of itself screams innovation, at least in terms of a zoological park. Toy Story Mania at the Studios certainly created some buzz. Mission: Space, Test Track, Soarin', etc..... I don't think any park should be a museum. I'm just asking the questions is all. And, while some of us "regulars" may wish there was an addition here or there at the MK between '92 and now the fact of the matter is millions and millions of people have enjoyed the park in that 20 years.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<From a financial position, show me the "need" at the Magic Kingdom. >> By that logic, what's the need for them to add anything at Walt Disney World. They already have the highest attended theme park resort in the world. Why bother doing anything else?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<the fact of the matter is millions and millions of people have enjoyed the park in that 20 years.>> True, but did they also leave with a feeling that things were pretty old and stale at the MK? While they may have enjoyed themselves, did they form an attachment with the place and a desire to return? There's no way to know, but I would bet that a lot of new visitors to the Magic Kingdom notice that a lot of the park is stuck in the 1970s.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Mermaid, meanwhile, that's no E. Definitely could be a C, though, if it's as short as it looks./// It will be a solid 'D' effort. And ride length really isn't the best metric for determining ticket type. We look for how ambitious the project is(size/budget/scope) when assigning a letter.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>By that logic, what's the need for them to add anything at Walt Disney World. They already have the highest attended theme park resort in the world. Why bother doing anything else?<<<< And that's exactly how they treat the parks, too....
Originally Posted By Manfried Maintaining a mature business is a different proposition from a capital spending standpoint than spending on a growing business. The Magic Kingdom's attendance has been the highest attended theme park for decades now. And it's been kind of consistent. So how much a business spends on a stable business is always a tough issue. Too much spending, then the company's not profitable. Too little and people stop coming. Not justifying everything, just stating the reality. So for the existing parks they need to figure out how much they need to spend to keep the turnstiles clicking, and what to spend it on. That said, I think EPCOT Center could be a growing business if they had the right folks leading that business unit. It has plenty of room, could grow with more countries and more. That park needs a visionary more than any other one.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 Actually, several years back Disney did a survey that concluded that adding a new country to World Showcase would not increase attendance enough to warrant building it. The only caveat would be if Disney wanted to invest in a E-ticket attraction like the Mt Fuji coaster that was on the drawing boards in the late 80's. In terms of vision I think the Disney Hollywood Studios has less vision than any of the other parks. It's a mish mash of a park that hasnt transitioned well from a "working" studio (lol) to just a theme park about movies.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>That said, I think EPCOT Center could be a growing business if they had the right folks leading that business unit. It has plenty of room, could grow with more countries and more. That park needs a visionary more than any other one.<<< Preach! Out of the 4 parks, EPCOT is the one that can't stand still, and that's because of it's subject matter. There needs to be a lot of venues that can be quickly and easily updated, and honestly, I think they have them. Inoventions, for one, could EASILY be a showplace of technology that isn't so much tied to the company, as it is to the showmanship and thematics of it. WDW could have a "convention" center on their hands there, with their aesthetics, and THEIR thematics promoting the future of technology. It really could be the Center of the EPCOT Experience. And the same for the rides. Mission: SPACE is in a VERY easy place for it to be updated. Even Test Track, could be spruced up with some actual props. UoE? All those movies could be swapped out. And of course, Nemo just needs to be found... elsewhere. (Like on the end of a hook!) (Brutal, I know...)
Originally Posted By Christi22222 >>Animal Kingdom in and of itself screams innovation, at least in terms of a zoological park.<< I have to take issue with this. I think AK is a beautiful park. And I applaud any efforts to educate folks on wildlife conservation. But with that said, I think calling it a "zoological park" is a huge stretch, let alone an innovative one. I was still zoo keeping when the park opened, and the zoo community was horrified about the obvious inherent clash of purposes between a theme park - which AK is, no matter how you dress it - and a modern zoo. And I'm not talking clever "nah ta zu" phrases. Folks visit a theme park to be entertained. In that vein, most of the animal interactions in that park have to be "entertaining." The new model of zoos is very much against this style. You don't want folks to view animals as entertainment for their own personal enjoyment. That's a circus. You can shove the conservation message down folks throats until you are blue in the face, but if they leave feeling like the purpose of those animals was to entertain you, then you completely undermine your attempt to raise the value of wildness and wild animals in the public consciousness. Frankly, it is an attempt to put a lovely shade of lipstick on a pig. Should the birds have to do a show for folks to learn the wonders and ecological value of birds? Should savannah animals have to come with a fake safari trek to be worth viewing? I applaud the wildlife trails, but let's face it, most folks skip those. As well as the random walk thru habitats. And the conservation station is an annoyance to most folks who are disappointed with what it is and had to endure the train bottleneck to get there. It's Sea World all over. Why does a freakin' killer whale have to do a show about dreams (did they copy Disney?) to get folks' attention. Frankly, there are far better zoos for wildlife appreciation out there, and in some very unlikely places in this country. Disney did not need to create yet another place to house captive animals. I don't think the lions in Africa are drawing straws to get into American zoos. And yes, I am well aware of how many critters have been bred in captivity and not taken from the wild. I am also aware of how stressful this often is on the animals and how often they abandon or kill their young, so the keepers get to step in and play mama to a wild animal. Ugh. We need zoos and aquariums, but we don't need one on every corner. And we sure don't need one that's a disguised theme park. Lovely as it is. And yes, I still go. I am interested in what they do at that park. And I am quite sure that my small minority of people who feel this way about wildlife deciding not to attend the AK park won't change much. So I go to try to encourage my son to learn from the good stuff. We ALWAYS do the trails. But please don't call Disney's latest schtick to create a theme park a "zoological park" as though they've done something less than self serving. They've simply expanded the message to the masses that wildlife is for entertainment purposes and comes best in a cage. Bet you won't open that can of worms again!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>We ALWAYS do the trails.<< You and me both! I have to see the tigers just being tigers.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Correct me if I'm wrong Christi...but is not Animal Kingdom Accredited?
Originally Posted By Christi22222 Yes, wahooskipper. It absolutely is accredited. And as far as zoos go, I understand them to treat their animals very well. After their opening issues, with so many animal deaths, they really haven't had many incidents. And all appears to be very clean. My issue is that this country needs another place to stock with captive critters about as much as it needs more debt! I think if you are going to run an institution with wild animals, Disney seems to do it quite well. But really, how many of this kind of place does there need to be? Why did Disney need to step into this arena? Are they helping animals more than other institutions already were? In my opinion, no. And in some ways, they are undercutting their own professed message.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't know...considering we as humans are pretty much destroying habitat all over the world I think the demand for these types of facilities will continue to grow. I don't think they are helping animals MORE than a San Diego Zoo/Wild Animal Park but I think they are certainly working in cooperation. I certainly respect your opinion though. I've always had a little guilt about enjoying the zoos, aquariums, etc as much as I do. Chances are I'm never going to get to Africa and chances aren't much better I'll ever see an orca in the wild so I do appreciate the Disney's and Sea World's of the world.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But please don't call Disney's latest schtick to create a theme park a "zoological park" as though they've done something less than self serving. They've simply expanded the message to the masses that wildlife is for entertainment purposes and comes best in a cage. << Oh, I don't think that's the message they're sending at all. Yes, it is "edu-tainment" but there is no denying that Disney, with the size of the crowds it attracts, has a great opportunity to educate people about various species. And yes, it is a for-profit venture, no question. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of information and education that is dispensed to people in unique and engaging ways. >>Are they helping animals more than other institutions already were?<< Again, considering the amount of visitors they get, I think they're spreading the message about conservation and caring for the planet about as well as any regional zoo. There is a value in having people see these animals up close. It opens people's eyes to man's impact on nature.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> Again, considering the amount of visitors they get, I think they're spreading the message about conservation and caring for the planet about as well as any regional zoo. << I'm not convinced the majority of guests learn anything that profound at DAK or at most zoos. DAK is, as Christi pointed out, first and foremost an entertainment venture. I may be in the minority here, but I also don't think EPCOT was ever an educational powerhouse as some people seem to think. Maybe it's possible for theme parks to educate, but I think for the most part there are many limitations when it comes to theme parks sponsoring actual in-depth learning. You could almost see edutainment in theme parks as very similar to cable news. They both give you superficial glimpses of rather complex issues. >> There is a value in having people see these animals up close. It opens people's eyes to man's impact on nature. << I'm not convinced about this, either. Hypothetically, seeing animals might help you appreciate "exotic nature," the kind that you don't see everyday. But as many environmentalists have pointed out, people tend to be less concerned with their own backyards--which adds up to a lot more irresponsible behavior--and more likely to romanticize environmental problems in distant, faraway places like South American rainforests. I actually agree with a lot of what Christi said, although I don't exactly agree with the equivalence between DAK and Sea World, which I suspect does more for conservation and local wildlife "behind the scenes" than DAK does.
Originally Posted By avimagine ^^^ Maybe they should just turn our local College into a Theme Park, then I'd go back for my doctorate
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They both give you superficial glimpses of rather complex issues.<< Yes, but at least they're planting the seed. I was much more interested in the world of molecules and space travel after visits to Disneyland, as superficial as they may have touched on those topics. There is a value, to me, just in having people's minds opened a bit to think about this stuff. Add another park filled with just iron rides and there certainly isn't much edutainment in that.
