5th Theme Park

Guy · Post by **Guy** » Feb Fri 22, 2008 7:13 am

I don't particularly like either! The night park just doesn't sound interesting.

lebeau · Post by **lebeau** » Feb Fri 22, 2008 9:04 am

The article on the Night Park doesn't sound all that interesting to me either. But, if it is done right, I see it being a huge money-maker for Disney. Frankly, a "niche park" is the only kind of "fifth gate" that makes any financial sense. Anything else that I have seen proposed wouldn't generate a big enough return on investment to be worth it.

I understand why some people like the idea of the Villains thrill park. You love Disney. You're going to go to Disney no matter what. But wouldn't it be nice if they also had more thrill rides?

The thing is, most people don't go to Disney over and over. They go to Disney once in a lifetime or maybe a few times. And they make that trip because Disney is different. They can ride thrill rides in their home state. A thrill park isn't going to inspire a lot of casual tourists to add an extra day to their stay. And that's what a fifth gate needs to do (except for a "niche park" which can generate a lot of cash off a small, wealthy client base.)

Also, to a casual tourist, a Villains park is not going to have a lot of appeal. A lot of little kids are afraid of Mickey, much less a towering Captain Hook. My understanding is they stopped doing the Villains breakfast due to complaints. I don't see them building a park around a concept that couldn't support a character breakfast.

Post by **YZFDonor** » Feb Fri 22, 2008 11:36 am

Captain Schnemo wrote:A thrill ride park is an exclusionary anti-Disney park. Bad idea.

Move all the Thrill rides to it and bring back the rides we loved!!! Thrill seekers need not apply to the first four parks.

just in jest guys...

Calypso · Post by **Calypso** » Feb Fri 22, 2008 12:06 pm

Both are horrible ideas. Disney needs to capaitalizw on what has worked in the past, which has always broken the mold of what to expect from a theme park.

mousemaniacs · Post by **mousemaniacs** » Mar Tue 04, 2008 6:38 pm

Captain Schnemo wrote:A thrill ride park is an exclusionary anti-Disney park. Bad idea.

Does that mean the thrill rides already in disney are also exclusionary? Some of the most popular rides at WDW are thrill rides: space mountain, thunder mountain, splash mountain, rock and roller coaster, tower of terror, test track, everest. Can you imagine WDW without those rides? I agree that tourists can visit thrill parks in their hometowns, but nobody does attractions like disney, including thrill-rides. Superman at a Six Flags park is faster and more exhilarating than space mountain, but the theming and overall experience is lacking. Disney can do thrill rides and do them well...so why not a whole theme park? Maybe more families with teenagers or young married couples w/o children would be more open to a WDW vacation, eh? I'm sure people had the same "bad idea" reaction when disney first ventured into water parks. I mean, why would I go to a water park when I've got 2 or 3 to choose from at my local town? It's about a complete package. That's what disney does best!

Esmeralda · Post by **Esmeralda** » Mar Tue 04, 2008 7:13 pm

Neither for me. I get sick on the thrill rides and enjoy the rides for the whole family (Mr. Toad!) more. I'd rather see them plus the parks that are already there. Mickey's Philharmagic is on right now and I'd say that's a great example of something new Disney has done to make Fantasyland much more appealing to me.

I agree with the comment about Tokyo Disney Sea though. I hope to get there someday! In the mean time, I hope they theme all the new rides as well as that park.

jcodirewolf · Post by **jcodirewolf** » Mar Tue 04, 2008 8:51 pm

I don't know how people define thrill rides. But I really don't think of most of those thrill rides, the exceptions being ToT, and RnR.

They do do theming much better than say 6 flags. Oh it's a superman coaster, because we decorated it with Superman S's. But I wouldn't put Superman Ride of Steel on par with anything at the Disney Parks, rating purely on Thrill Factor.

johno

Captain Schnemo · Post by **Captain Schnemo** » Mar Wed 05, 2008 5:33 am

A thrill ride park is not going to appeal to grandparents, very young children, or people who just don't like thrill rides. That's a whole park that large groups of people (Disney fans, in particular) will have no interest in. The entire reason Disneyland came into existence was in reaction to conventional amusement parks where families didn't enjoy things as a group.

Additionally, Disney thrill rides are tamer than "real" thrill rides, so it wouldn't attract proper thrill ride fans either (and in any case Disney doesn't want to court that market).

There's a huge difference between a whole park dedicated to something that a lot of people don't like and a sprinkling of tame "thrills" in otherwise family-friendly parks.

ranbart · Post by **ranbart** » Mar Wed 05, 2008 7:05 am

My vote would be neither. However I agree with if a thrill ride area is needed then add it to an existing park instead of adding another park. Let's take care of the 4 we have.

AKLRULZ · Post by **AKLRULZ** » Mar Wed 05, 2008 8:48 am

I'd love a Villains themed park without an exclusive thrill ride focus. I also love the idea of Night Kingdom. I think anything Disney would do for a 5th gate would be amazing.

But my personal favorite is to theme a 5th gate with the defeated Disney America theme park originally slated for Northern Virginia in the early/mid 1990s.

WVParkfan · Post by **WVParkfan** » Mar Wed 05, 2008 10:06 am

I'm not sure I understand this Night Kingdom, at all. I don't think Jim Hill did a good job of explaining it, so I'll reserve judgment until after I hear what Disney has to say (if and when they do make an announcement).

Post by **js3901** » Mar Wed 05, 2008 10:30 am

what is it with the "Kingdom" name being used for everything now? "Beastly Kingdom", "Night Kingdom", "Kingdom Tower(s)"... I know they started with "Magic Kingdom, and then added "Animal Kingdom", but do we really need another "Kingdom on the WDW property?

I voted "neither" personally. neither sounds too appealing to me, or my wallet...

mousemaniacs · Post by **mousemaniacs** » Mar Wed 05, 2008 12:28 pm

Someday they are gonna do a 5th park. There's no doubt. It is the only significant way to distribute the crowds as the attendance grows overtime. You can't just say, "focus on improving the current parks", because it doesn't address crowding.

So, why can't the 5th park be a trill park? A large set of thrill rides have been the missing component to our Disney experience. Everything else is great, but it would really round out the offering. No, it wouldn't appeal to everyone, but no single thing at Disney does. We just wanting a more well-rounded package. Think it won't work? Families with teens are still families. I doubt many of these families are going to WDW right now for this very reason. Also, the water parks (also very niche parks) are doing well...but I give up this fight. Most of you aren't gonna budge no matter what I write. We'll have to agree to disagree. Arg.

yodiwan1 · Post by **yodiwan1** » Mar Thu 06, 2008 1:59 am

dont worry mousemaniacs, i agree with you!!! To say that Disney's Thrill rides are tamer is rediculous! Mission:Space was so wild they were forced to tame it, and the drops on TOT are not tame at all. Some people say not all peop would want an all thrill park, but who says everyone wants to go to a glorified zoo? nothing against AK, I love it, but there are some peop that don't like going to see animals, and that is most of AK. So to say Disney shouldn't build a park with a theme such as thrills is rediculous.

dimagineer · Post by **dimagineer** » Mar Thu 06, 2008 8:09 am

I voted neither. Disney can come up with a lot better ideas than these.

Subsonic Radio

5th Theme Park

What is a better idea for a 5th theme park at WDW?