5th Theme Park

[lebeau]

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.

Sure you can. All you have to do is increase capacity. One attraction with a high capacity can gobble up crowds.

There will likely come a day when WDW will need to open a 5th gate to distribute crowds. But that day is a long way off.

The reason for Disney to open a 5th gate today is $$$. If they can get people to extend the length of their stay by adding a traditional 5th gate, then it makes sense to do so.

The appeal of the "niche park" business model is that they don't have to get the average tourist to extend their stay (which a traditional 5th gate is unlikely to do). Instead, they can make top dollar off a small, exclusive clientel.

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.

It could be. But I would argue that a large set of thrill rides is not missing from the Disney experience. The Disney experience is uniquely Disney in part because it's not just a collection of thrill rides like most other amusement parks.

Everything else is great, but it would really round out the offering.

Please elaborate. I just don't see how this would round out anything.

Every Disney park currently has a few thrill rides scattered about. If you want thrill rides, they are there to be had. How does sitting a whole bunch of these rides right next to each other enhance the WDW experience for anyone other than die-hard coaster junkies?

I don't think a park should focus on any one kind of experience. They should all be a blend of different types of attractions.

Plus, if you really want to ride thrill ride after thrill ride, there's an amusement park in just about every major city that will accomodate you.

No, it wouldn't appeal to everyone, but no single thing at Disney does.

Only to the extent that you can't please everyone all of the time.

There are plenty of things in WDW that are designed to appeal to a broad demographic. Even most of the thrill rides are designed in such a way that people who don't like thrill rides might like them.

If you build a bunch of thrill rides, you can either built them for the hard core thrill seekers to the exclusion of everyone else (the core Disney fan?). Or you can make them relatively tame, family-friendly "thrill rides" that will disappoint the coaster crowd.

Sure, you can mix them up. That's pretty much what we have now.

We just wanting a more well-rounded package.

How is building only one type of attraction in a single park well-rounded?

I get what you are saying. The overall picture would be more well-rounded. But that would be true if they built a fifth gate for pre-schoolers. And a six gate for teenagers. And a seventh gate for the elderly. But that's antithical to Disney.

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.

There are plenty of families with teenagers at WDW. The ones who won't go because there aren't enough thrill rides are unlikely to be coaxed to WDW by a thrill park themed to animated villains. They are too cool for school and cartoons are lame.

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.

The water parks are not a "niche park" in the same way that Discovery cove is or that Night Kingdom theoretically would be. And water parks are much cheaper to build than a park full of thrill rides. Much less thrill rides themed to the extent that Disney themes thrill rides.

When Disney builds a thrill ride, it is a big event. ADisney thrill ride is a tremendous expense. Why would you want to invest so heavily in just one gate? They want these sprikled acorss every existing gate so that people will be drawn to each park.

The kind of park you are suggesting would be a tremendous investment for Disney. (Not to mention a very risky one.) disney can get a better return on their investment with dozens of other ideas.

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.

You are kind of building an argument against the thrill park idea here.

1. Mission Space has been a bit of a disappointment. It's too intense for the average Disney fan. Just because a ride is high on thrills does not mean that it will be a hit for Disney.

2. AK has struggled against the idea that AK is just a fancy zoo. It has been a problem since AK opened. A thrill park would have to struggle against the idea that it is just a fancy Six Flags.

[Calypso]

It's all interesting discussion, but Disney needs to come up with (or wait for) a good reason/theme to build a 5th park. I agree with the sentiment that Disney should take care of/upgrade the 4 parks it has before it expands.

[Captain Schnemo]

AK has struggled against the idea that AK is just a fancy zoo.

Exactly. And if it only had animals, it really would just be a fancy zoo.

But Disney was smart enough to add thrills, family rides, shows, musicals, and other experiences so that the park appeals to everyone. (It wasn't smart enough to open the park with enough stuff to kill a whole day, but that's another matter entirely.)

Also there's absolutely no question that Disney's thrill rides are mild, and famously so. There's nothing like the Hulk coaster at IOA or the even crazier rides at your average Six Flags. Even given that, Space Mountain is still too intense for a lot of Disney guests, meaning the threshold for "thrills" is pretty low.

[Mupsy90]

I voted neither. I like the night kingdom idea and i agree that a thrill ride only park is antidisney, it sounds like another Six flags or Universal.

[Calypso]

The rumors continue: http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/Theme_Parks ... h_park.htm

[skull]

Personally, I'd love to see a thrill park. I doubt it would happen. Although, I wouldn't be surprised to see some new rides step up on the thrill-O-meter in the parks.

[rdeacon]

I voted for neither.

Until they can fix the issues with the 4 parks they have there is no reason to expand.

I just don't see a need to spend the money to crate another gate when you can improve and expand the 4 parks you have.

I read all the posts.. great and interesting comments. I do find it interesting that people are pushing for a "thrill-ride" park

I don't see the logic in it. Its not a Disney idea, and its not a financially viable option as well. Just look at Six Flags. They are a thrill ride orientated park, and are not doing well financially. The reason is thrill parks attract mostly young adults and teens. This market share does not spend money. Six Flags is now trying to expand its range to include many more rides for kids, because parents with kids spend money!

It also should be noted that by just adding another gate does not mean crowds will be distributed out to evenly to the over parks. This is clearly evident at WDW and even more clearly defined in CA. I have heard that Disneyland will be packed to capacity while DCA is empty

The reason MK and DL are always crowded is the park works on all levels. It attracts everyone. When and if Disney adds a fifth gate, they will surely follow this same pattern. Let just hope they learned a lot from the mistakes of their last gate DCA.

Rich

[luv2cthemouse]

I don't care for either. Instead of a new park, I would rather see them build onto Animal Kingdom and the other parks if there is room.

[tmptnr]

night kingdom would never work. Sounds like it's taking away from the "family" part of the show and singling out a spacific group of people. The Villens Park Idea is very limited. I would not expect to see either of these in the future plans at wdw. but thats just me. I think they can get more creative than this. Not to completely bash the Idea. I'm sure there is a fan base for "villains" and "thrill rides" I think the WED would approach a new park in a very differant way because 4 parks now is nearly impossible to see in a 1 week vacation. 5 probably not. lots to think about here good topic to spir thought

[Dr. Ravenscroft]

Until they can fix the issues with the 4 parks they have there is no reason to expand.

Exactly. They have too many issues with the 4 current parks, why would you add another park that is going to sap your men and supplies for a year or two when you should be using them to better the current parks.

I don't see the logic in it. Its not a Disney idea, and its not a financially viable option as well.

Another good point, but I would have to say that Disney could do a park with more thrills better than sixflags. If the rides are created with great stories, and and attention to detail they could have a very lucrative park. But yes it is usually younger folk that ride these rides, although one of the guys who comes to my building LOVES coasters and he is in his 50's so it isn't limited to teens and young adults. Disney could theme the rides so that the people who don't want to go on the coasters can have something to do, like some sort of interactive exhibit.

It also should be noted that by just adding another gate does not mean crowds will be distributed out to evenly to the over parks. This is clearly evident at WDW and even more clearly defined in CA. I have heard that Disneyland will be packed to capacity while DCA is empty

This is very very very true, but hopefully not for very long. during the inpromtu DL SSR meeting we met in front of DCA and went in.......EMPTY!!!!!!! Then we went over to DL and ______ was it crowded!

[lebeau]

Until they can fix the issues with the 4 parks they have there is no reason to expand.

Exactly. They have too many issues with the 4 current parks, why would you add another park that is going to sap your men and supplies for a year or two when you should be using them to better the current parks.

Well the "niche" or "boutique" park idea isn't truly a 5th gate. That's why I can see it happening. If Disney ever builds a true 5th gate, I don't expect to see it for a very long time.

But if Disney finds a way to separate their wealthiest clientelle from their disposable income with a minimum investment on their part, I think they will take it. And, as Discovery Cove has proven, the business model for this sort of thing works.

The question is, can Disney recreate the success of Discovery Cove. Despite the rather uninspiring details in the Jim Hill article, I believe they can do it.

It's a shame they are copying other successful parks rather than truly innovating the way they used to. But it is what it is. They won't let Discovery Cove's success go unchallenged indefinitely. I'm sure of that.

[disneydreamer58]

Personally I don't want to see a new park, they can't even take care of the ones they have! There are major refurbs that need to be done and can they PLEEZZZ do something with River Country! How about they sink money into the parks they have instead of thinking they can bring in the bucks by adding another park!

[blinkereye123]

Hi again folks. While I'm also voting for neither I do believe a 5th park woud be a viable option for WDW. As for what constitutes a "thrill ride" that's pretty much an open-ended debate. I mean, even in the early days rides like HM and POTC were considered "thrill rides" because they did offer a fun jolt to the system. While it is true that not everything at the parks appeal to everyone I do believe that it's that very diversity that keeps people coming back every year. So: 5th park, yes. Villain or Night park, no. Peace.

[skull]

A villian park doesn't have to be a "thrill park" though. I'm sure they could come up with a diversity of rides themed around villians.

[Breton]

I don't really like either of the ideas. They just don't sound Disney.