Thrill Park at Disney

[emnbensdad]

I wish all you folks would kindly state what is on your mind and be passionate about it instead of . . . . oh nevermind. . . I think everyone gets my sarcasm.

[DisBeamer]

IOA is nothing like a Six Flags and they've spent a lot of money and effort on theming, but it still attracts the sort of person that Disney probably doesn't want associated with their parks. Or at least it encourages people who might behave themselves in a regular Disney park to behave differently.

I have to wonder how much of that is just the presence of alcohol + thrill rides, though. Or just alcohol + excitement in general. Disney has its 'clean' image, and that probably keeps 95% of the rabble away by itself (to say nothing of the fact it's really expensive), but I've seen plenty of people behaving in a non-Disney manner around World Showcase when they're half in the bag. Saturday afternoon at the Food and Wine Festival had the feel of a really big frat party - I saw CMs breaking up a near-fist fight outside the American Adventure over some football thing or other. That doesn't seem to usually happen when F&W isn't on (at least, as far as I've ever seen), even though the horribly expensive alcohol is still flowing.

[Captain Schnemo]

Alcohol is definitely a factor. I have seen that kind of thing at World Showcase too, and I can only imagine what it would be like with a few steel roller coasters thrown into the mix.

Once you get the ball rolling and that kind of behavior becomes more prevalent, it becomes a lot easier for more people to take part in it.

I'd be worried about that kind of attitude at a park that would be selling itself as "edgy". Disney is not good at edgy, and it doesn't seem to like the results when it's tried it out.

Another issue is the presence of the carny games, which is sort of a non-Disney thing (which makes the Toy Story thing more distasteful to me) that seems very popular with certain kinds of people. Again, there's not a lot of this in IOA, but it is there, and it is noticeable. I suppose Universal has made the calculation that these things are profitable, but I can't help but think it would improve the average customer experience if they weren't there.

[DisBeamer]

I'd be worried about that kind of attitude at a park that would be selling itself as "edgy". Disney is not good at edgy, and it doesn't seem to like the results when it's tried it out.

Good point. Disney's edgy usually manifests as obnoxious (see also: current state of Tiki Room), or inappropriately terrifying for the intended audience (the original Alien Encounter gooey-ness).

Another issue is the presence of the carny games, which is sort of a non-Disney thing (which makes the Toy Story thing more distasteful to me) that seems very popular with certain kinds of people. Again, there's not a lot of this in IOA, but it is there, and it is noticeable. I suppose Universal has made the calculation that these things are profitable, but I can't help but think it would improve the average customer experience if they weren't there.

They actually do have these along the Boardwalk. Though that said, I'm not sure I've ever seen them open so maybe they're just there for atmosphere...

If they were to tackle a 'thrill park' it would have to be a lot different than the image most of us get when we think thrill park. Disney circa 1985 I'd trust with the job. Not so much now. In any event, I stick by my original sentiment; I think there's a market for it, and I think it's at least possible they'd do a good job, but even if it was going to be the pinnacle of awesome, I'd rather they throw money at the four existing parks if they feel the need to spend.

[purple figment]

Another issue is the presence of the carny games, which is sort of a non-Disney thing (which makes the Toy Story thing more distasteful to me) that seems very popular with certain kinds of people. Again, there's not a lot of this in IOA, but it is there, and it is noticeable. I suppose Universal has made the calculation that these things are profitable, but I can't help but think it would improve the average customer experience if they weren't there.

They also have these in Dinoland at Animal Kingdom. They are very annoying. I think it would improve the average customer experience if they weren't there, too. Although, I digress.
You are also right when you say that Disney does not do edgy well. Well said.

[packwingfn]

IOA is nothing like a Six Flags and they've spent a lot of money and effort on theming, but it still attracts the sort of person that Disney probably doesn't want associated with their parks. Or at least it encourages people who might behave themselves in a regular Disney park to behave differently.

I have to wonder how much of that is just the presence of alcohol + thrill rides, though. Or just alcohol + excitement in general. Disney has its 'clean' image, and that probably keeps 95% of the rabble away by itself (to say nothing of the fact it's really expensive), but I've seen plenty of people behaving in a non-Disney manner around World Showcase when they're half in the bag. Saturday afternoon at the Food and Wine Festival had the feel of a really big frat party - I saw CMs breaking up a near-fist fight outside the American Adventure over some football thing or other. That doesn't seem to usually happen when F&W isn't on (at least, as far as I've ever seen), even though the horribly expensive alcohol is still flowing.

Having experienced working in World Showcase for 5 months, I got to see the worst of the F&W Festival. I liked it a lot during the weekdays when it was quiet, enjoyable and normal tourists but during the weekends, It was like frat party central with a bunch of college kids and people you would normally see at your local bar, but no fights, it just ruined the atmosphere of World Showcase and EPCOT.

[DisBeamer]

Having experienced working in World Showcase for 5 months, I got to see the worst of the F&W Festival. I liked it a lot during the weekdays when it was quiet, enjoyable and normal tourists but during the weekends, It was like frat party central with a bunch of college kids and people you would normally see at your local bar, but no fights, it just ruined the atmosphere of World Showcase and EPCOT.

I really, really liked Food and Wine during the weekday afternoons, and plan to go back again for it someday but, yeah, Saturday afternoon it got to the point where I finally said "Let's leave." I think the American pavilion is probably the best place to catch the fights, 'cause if you're drinking around the world - which most of these people were LOUDLY proclaiming they were doing - you're about half tanked by that point. No offense to any Orlando residents, but from what I understand the weekends are like that because it's a big local thing to do during F&W.

I admit, it was semi-entertaining to see a bunch of drunken, dressed for clubbing, girls in heels tottering around World Showcase. Even more fun to watch them fall over. S'like People Watching Gone Wild.

[DIAC1987]

An IOA-like park wouldn't work in the Disney mold, but a park that can evenly balance the amount of thrill rides and rides for families would work much better. Like for every two or three kiddie rides, you have a nice thrill ride in the general area for the thrillseekers.

[mdk010]

If you want rollercoasters go elsewhere. That isnt what Disney is about.

[DaRkNeSs]

No I really dont want Disney to make a thrill park. I like the mix that they have now. The family environment that Disney offers is great, they have rides for all ages. I do agree, do not like carny games very annoying and out of place. I would like Disney to keep adding where they can and use some imagination with concepts.
I love the F & W festival at epcot, but I do agree with the weekend comment. It does become a frat party, my son and I also left that saturday!

[Mr.ToadWildRider]

To those arguing that Disney should give more focus to families with teens and groups of adults I agree whole heartedly; I just disagree that a park designed for this group alone is the solution. The idea is the current parks cater to families with small children....AND families w/ teens....AND groups of adults.

How successful is it at achieving these goals? I don't know the results of the surveys and studies but I know that I've been going to WDW for the last 20+ years of my life. First as a small child/infant w/ my family, then as a teen w/ my family, then as an adult w/ my family, and now as an adult w/ other adults (friends, girlfiends, etc). I live in MA so it's a fairly big (costly, long planned) type thing to go to WDW. I'm no weekend warrior local who can bring his dates there and I wasn't placed in a park at age 11 as a means for babysitting. Every time I've gone it has been and hopefully always will be a big deal to me (not that it's not to locals but I just imagine its different when you're at WDW a handful of times a year-every weekend versus a handful of times a decade-once every other year). I looked forward to (and continue to) and cherished every time I went regardless of my age and/or the ages of my companions. That's what Disney is supposed to do. I'm sorry but if a teenager or an adult needs to be on a rollercoaster from park open to park close go to Busch Gardens, Disney isn't what you're seeking. Disney is about having a variety of experiences; some thrilling, some relaxed, some educational, some silly, but ALL entertaining. I think breaking that mantra by building a park that limits itself is not just bad for the philosophy of Disney World but also just plain bad business. If a car company stopped producing sedans and vans and just started building flat bed trucks because vans were boring to some it wouldn't be wise, why should a theme park chain be different (okay I realize the flaws in my analogy as the other parks still exist but you get what I mean hopefully)

[theBIGyowski]

Mr.ToadWildRider...

You described me to a T. I have been at ages 4, 14, 20, 26, and 27...and every trip was special in the same way...and special in different ways. If people want to just ride thrill rides they can go to IOA.

Great post!

[napastoy]

Mr.ToadWildRider...

You described me to a T. I have been at ages 4, 14, 20, 26, and 27...and every trip was special in the same way...and special in different ways. If people want to just ride thrill rides they can go to IOA.

Great post!

I do understand what your saying and pretty much feel the same way. The one problem I have is with people with kids who feel that no one counts but them...the little ones they have today will grow up someday and they need to be more inclusive in their thinking of the Disney community as a whole. It is not all about them because they have a stroller.


That said, Disney has always shied away from the "thrill park" idea in the past because that was of things that set them apart and made them unique. Could they build one? Sure...lord knows there is more than enough space and if they did, no one is forced to go there who doesn't want to.

Just like right now...you go to whichever park you want. As it stands now for us as a couple with no more kids at home, MK is always the last stop we make. After about three hours of all the screaming, whining, crying, fighting, line jumping, stroller wars and other family prime time exploits you can witness at any given time, I'm ready for a drink, a quick exit and a quieter park.

It is not always pixie dust, magic and smiles in the parks now, but I think we all survive.

More to the point of adding a thrill park is would it be well done? That is where I answer probably not. Not from the current Disney standpoint. I was sorry to see Pleasure Island go...it was nice to have a "grown up" place to visit while still being in the middle of all the magic.

And I believe that is what most of "thrill park" advocates are really trying to get across. The idea of a thrill park at WDW means they don't have to "leave the world" as many of you have suggested they do.

WDW has been pretty good about responding to guests leaving the world...that is something they do not want people to do. They want every dime they can get to be spent in WDW...hence Downtown Disney, the Marketplace and Pleasure Island.

Adding a thrill park would not shut down or stop anyone from attending any other park. I don't believe it would take away from the magic...it would take more than adding a thrill park to take away the magic for me.

What takes away from the magic is the thoughtless revamps, watered down parades and limited imaginaneering I've seen of the late. With the addition of Harry Potter next year (and if that turns out to be a smash hit) they may be forced to add something or maybe seek a new lucrative licensing agreement with a willing partner.


I would prefer they fix what they've got that needs fixing before adding a new park, thrill or not.

[Mr.ToadWildRider]

Mr.ToadWildRider...

You described me to a T. I have been at ages 4, 14, 20, 26, and 27...and every trip was special in the same way...and special in different ways. If people want to just ride thrill rides they can go to IOA.
Great post!

Thanks

I do understand what your saying and pretty much feel the same way. The one problem I have is with people with kids who feel that no one counts but them...the little ones they have today will grow up someday and they need to be more inclusive in their thinking of the Disney community as a whole. It is not all about them because they have a stroller.

I understand what you're saying, but that's a problem with those guests, not WDW. What I was trying to illustrate is that I think it's selfish for ANY group to expect WDW to cater to just their group/demographic. While initially I was speaking about making an entire park to cater to the older crowds that applies to the people with toddlers/youngsters too. I don't expect there to be an entire park made up of splash zones and play places and other such attractions that only appeal to them just as I don't expect there to be a thrill park. Okay, so MK has Toontown/Country Fair/Birthday Land or whatever it's called today, which I'll admit I skip and is probably the closest to an area designed explicitly for the youngest of guests - but I still see pictures of very jubilant adults there too sans strollers. However, if the whole park was like that I doubt those same adults would be there. It's okay for Disney to have attractions, and while I personally don't tend to agree with it, whole areas dedicated towards certain groups (i.e. Toontown for the kiddies, Sunset Blvd/WS for the adults), it's not okay for a park.

That said, Disney has always shied away from the "thrill park" idea in the past because that was of things that set them apart and made them unique. Could they build one? Sure...lord knows there is more than enough space and if they did, no one is forced to go there who doesn't want to.

While it's true no one would be forced to go, as noted previously to the average family they will almost feel obliged to see all of the proper parks or fear missing out on something. You're talking about shelling out another $280.00 (for the average family of 4) and extending a stay a day (in some cases). That's pretty rough; just expand some of the existing parks. Use the space that is available, I can think of spaces large enough for at least one LARGE attraction at EACH of the parks off the top of my head either by removing something obsolete or filling in/reconstructing unused areas. (MK: TL Speedway, Epcot: WoL Pavillion/Outpost, AK: I'm pretty sure areas along the river were originally supposed to be buildable...and the river itself, MGM: Backlot Tour Area/Animation)

More to the point of adding a thrill park is would it be well done? That is where I answer probably not. Not from the current Disney standpoint. I was sorry to see Pleasure Island go...it was nice to have a "grown up" place to visit while still being in the middle of all the magic.

And I believe that is what most of "thrill park" advocates are really trying to get across. The idea of a thrill park at WDW means they don't have to "leave the world" as many of you have suggested they do.

While I said go to Busch Gardens I was directing that to people who are seeking non-stop thrill rides. WDW doesn't need to cater specifically to one group to be inclusive- in fact that would be the exact opposite. WDW is inclusive NOW, people shouldn't have to leave to find something they like. I was making that statement to proponents of parks that feature ONLY what THEY like. There are parks out there for that kind of thing, but WDW was never meant to be that and fortunately has yet to become that.

Adding a thrill park would not shut down or stop anyone from attending any other park. I don't believe it would take away from the magic...it would take more than adding a thrill park to take away the magic for me.

No one is implying it will take away from the magic, but it will take away from the dream of Disney. A park costs a lot to build and even more to maintain over the years. That's a lot of money that could be going to continuing to expand in ways that are pleasing to all guests regardless of age. Why should we expect to make Disney build a park for older folks and then one solely for younger folks when they can do both in one park - or can continue to do both in their current parks? Why separate families who have children in different age groups when they can all enjoy the same parks together?

[/i]

[Jacca5660]

Mr.ToadWildRider...

You described me to a T. I have been at ages 4, 14, 20, 26, and 27...and every trip was special in the same way...and special in different ways. If people want to just ride thrill rides they can go to IOA.
Great post!

Thanks

I do understand what your saying and pretty much feel the same way. The one problem I have is with people with kids who feel that no one counts but them...the little ones they have today will grow up someday and they need to be more inclusive in their thinking of the Disney community as a whole. It is not all about them because they have a stroller.

I understand what you're saying, but that's a problem with those guests, not WDW. What I was trying to illustrate is that I think it's selfish for ANY group to expect WDW to cater to just their group/demographic. While initially I was speaking about making an entire park to cater to the older crowds that applies to the people with toddlers/youngsters too. I don't expect there to be an entire park made up of splash zones and play places and other such attractions that only appeal to them just as I don't expect there to be a thrill park. Okay, so MK has Toontown/Country Fair/Birthday Land or whatever it's called today, which I'll admit I skip and is probably the closest to an area designed explicitly for the youngest of guests - but I still see pictures of very jubilant adults there too sans strollers. However, if the whole park was like that I doubt those same adults would be there. It's okay for Disney to have attractions, and while I personally don't tend to agree with it, whole areas dedicated towards certain groups (i.e. Toontown for the kiddies, Sunset Blvd/WS for the adults), it's not okay for a park.

That said, Disney has always shied away from the "thrill park" idea in the past because that was of things that set them apart and made them unique. Could they build one? Sure...lord knows there is more than enough space and if they did, no one is forced to go there who doesn't want to.

While it's true no one would be forced to go, as noted previously to the average family they will almost feel obliged to see all of the proper parks or fear missing out on something. You're talking about shelling out another $280.00 (for the average family of 4) and extending a stay a day (in some cases). That's pretty rough; just expand some of the existing parks. Use the space that is available, I can think of spaces large enough for at least one LARGE attraction at EACH of the parks off the top of my head either by removing something obsolete or filling in/reconstructing unused areas. (MK: TL Speedway, Epcot: WoL Pavillion/Outpost, AK: I'm pretty sure areas along the river were originally supposed to be buildable...and the river itself, MGM: Backlot Tour Area/Animation)

More to the point of adding a thrill park is would it be well done? That is where I answer probably not. Not from the current Disney standpoint. I was sorry to see Pleasure Island go...it was nice to have a "grown up" place to visit while still being in the middle of all the magic.

And I believe that is what most of "thrill park" advocates are really trying to get across. The idea of a thrill park at WDW means they don't have to "leave the world" as many of you have suggested they do.

While I said go to Busch Gardens I was directing that to people who are seeking non-stop thrill rides. WDW doesn't need to cater specifically to one group to be inclusive- in fact that would be the exact opposite. WDW is inclusive NOW, people shouldn't have to leave to find something they like. I was making that statement to proponents of parks that feature ONLY what THEY like. There are parks out there for that kind of thing, but WDW was never meant to be that and fortunately has yet to become that.

Adding a thrill park would not shut down or stop anyone from attending any other park. I don't believe it would take away from the magic...it would take more than adding a thrill park to take away the magic for me.

No one is implying it will take away from the magic, but it will take away from the dream of Disney. A park costs a lot to build and even more to maintain over the years. That's a lot of money that could be going to continuing to expand in ways that are pleasing to all guests regardless of age. Why should we expect to make Disney build a park for older folks and then one solely for younger folks when they can do both in one park - or can continue to do both in their current parks? Why separate families who have children in different age groups when they can all enjoy the same parks together?

[/i]

I find what you said..well quit frankly insulting! Go to Busch Gardens? In fact Disney does cater to various groups (Families with young children, G*a*ys and others.). We at our house are filled with pixie dust. Because I'd like to see Disney have a thrill park that makes me un-Disney? Disney is a family thing, that doesn't mean just families in the stroller brigade! As has been posted here, MK is the last park we go to now and it's just for a few hours a night. I don't see why the almost abusive opposition to those of us that would love to see Disney have a park to go against Universal or Busch Gardens.