Passive no longer in DAK's future?

[larworth]

Couple DAK related articles. Sure makes it seem like rides and not animals are in the parks future.
rohde
weiss

Animal Kingdom may start to see some after-dark action such as private parties or themed entertainment events. Lighting fixtures now dot the park, which traditionally has closed at sunset. Says Disney's Potrock, "Right now we do special events in the other parks. We're trying to figure out what's right for Animal Kingdom."

Unlike Disney's other three Orlando theme parks, Animal Kingdom's appeal has hinged on its decidedly low-tech offerings: the chance to glimpse wildlife in a natural setting. However, although Disney does not release attendance figures, Amusement Business magazine estimates Animal Kingdom's 2001 attendance at 7.7 million, the lowest of the Florida parks.

That's one reason behind Disney's decision to inject a little thrill ride technology into the park. Newly unveiled is Chester & Hester's Dino-Rama, which features a smaller-scale roller coaster called Primeval Whirl. In a departure from Disney's 50-year tradition of creating its own custom-built system, the ride uses "off-the-shelf" technology.

It's part of a second phase for the park's DinoLand U.S.A., which employs a roadside carnival theme. The technology appears to be working. Weiss credits the new area for extending the length of stay for Animal Kingdom visitors.

Joe Rohde, the vice president of Walt Disney Imagineering who spearheaded the design of Animal Kingdom, also was bullish on the new rides. "This is what we need more of," Rohde says, "More big excitement, things that move and go fast. Big ideas. Kinetics."

Rohde would not comment on specific expansion plans, such as a rumored gigantic indoor roller coaster with a fire-breathing, audio animatronic dragon and a unicorn-themed dark ride offering a tamer experience. "We design new things and then we present them, and then we do them over again." As for future plans, Rohde says, "We have 70 acres to expand into and plenty of ideas for the space."

Q: What's next here in Animal Kingdom? A: I don't think we know exactly what's next. We're really focused on Chester & Hester's Dino-Rama. We found out over Easter and spring break that it really did extend guest length-of-stay and ride-per-capita in the park, and that was a good thing. Animal Kingdom's length of stay is still shorter than the other parks, and we want to continue to look at that.

Seems pretty obvious. Did they really think people wouldn’t give them a try. Let’s hope they don’t read too much into the results other than people do want more to do.

 

[Bob O]

Rhode sounds like a great guy!!!!!! he has true vision!!! " i love hearing things that move and go fast"!!!! Now combine that with great theming and a 54" height limit and their is the making of a true great thrill ride!!!

 

[barreloflaughs]

Mr. Rhodes of Disney apparently said:

This is what we need more of," Rohde says, "More big excitement, things that move and go fast. Big ideas. Kinetics."

If Primevial Whirl = 'Big Ideas' then please include me out!!!

carl
barrel of laughs

 

[All Aboard]

Hmmm, a dragon themed full scale roller coaster and a tamer unicorn themed roller coaster.

Gosh, this all seems really familiar. Almost as if I've experienced this somewhere before. Yes, it's coming back to me now. They were together, in the same theme park... side by side as a matter of fact. Seems like it was in Central Florida somewhere. Why can't I put my finger on it. Why oh why...O...A can't I think of where it was?

BobO, gotta disagree with you, a 54 inch attraction is not what Disney needs nor what the vast majority of it's guests want. If you are going to try to attract the crowd that won't go to WDW because of a lack of MAJOR thrill attractions, you ain't gonna do it with just one roller coaster. It'll take more than that, and I don't see WDW investing in a stable of thrillers.

I'd bet that the attraction will have broader appeal and a greater range of guest accessability. I'd bet on 48 inches. That will be a more successful attraction for WDW.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by gcurling
Hmmm, a dragon themed full scale roller coaster and a tamer unicorn themed roller coaster.

Gosh, this all seems really familiar. Almost as if I've experienced this somewhere before. Yes, it's coming back to me now. They were together, in the same theme park... side by side as a matter of fact. Seems like it was in Central Florida somewhere. Why can't I put my finger on it. Why oh why...O...A can't I think of where it was?

Ummm...sounds French. Le Dragons De duel?

 

[OnWithTheShow]

Rhode has been the creative executive of Animal Kingdom since the park ewas in its conceptual stages. He does know that the focus of the park is the animals and hopefully he wont allow the suits to force the park in a different direction.

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by larworth
Joe Rohde, the vice president of Walt Disney Imagineering who spearheaded the design of Animal Kingdom, also was bullish on the new rides. "This is what we need more of," Rohde says, "More big excitement, things that move and go fast. Big ideas. Kinetics."

I don't have time to explain the many ways in which this statement is so wrong. Dinorama is clearly NOT what Animal Kingdom needs more of! Big ideas and big excitement accurately describe AK in general, but Dinorama exhibits neither. Additional rides that merely "move and go fast" (like Primeval Whirl), without immersive theming and a cohesive storyline, are the last thing WDW needs.

 

[Bob O]

Primeval Whirl doesnt go fast in the least for a coaster!!! It doesnt meet his definition in the least!!!! PW was a cheap stop gap measure to put something in the park quick and cheap.
And a 54" attraction is most defitinely what WDW needs!!!! The ankle biters may not be able to ride but most everybody 10yrs or older would meet the height requirement and disney has nothing like it!! A 48" attraction limit will be unlikely to meet the moves faster unless the rid is over 200" tall. Otherwise it wont be much different in speed than RNRC whci his average at best IMHO. How do we know it wont be successful if its not tried. Other parks add coasters of similiar size and the rides have lines that are hours long and increase park attendance and revenue, so no reason it wouldnt work the same for disney if applied properly!!!

 

[DisDuck]

Other parks that have the 'gut wrenching' coasters do not attract the same audience as WDW or DL. I am only one family (of 3) but after going twice to IOA it is not on my scope anymore. I spend less time there than at AK. To me thrill coaster dominated parks are 1/2 day parks.

This June I will be at WDW with my nephew and his sisters. IOA is not on our list. In fact I am probably dropping Busch also because a good portion of the rides are 'thrill' and I know that no one in our group will go on them.

Give me a ToT or RnR type coaster, themed up the wazoo at AK with a 48" height restriction and I believe that will draw more people (more revenue) than any killer coaster with a 54" restriction. Think hard about the image of WDW, it is a 'family' destination not a 'thriller' destination. A ride that only appeals to the 'thriller' crowd will turn off the 'family' crowd.

 

[raidermatt]

DisDuck, we are also a family of three in a similar situation. We typically travel with friends, making our group anywhere from 5-10 at a given time. This only includes one "ankle biter", but for me, that's enough. Also, there are adults out there, including some in our group, who by choice generally don't ride true thrill attractions.

We had originally planned to go to IoA and/or USF during our upcoming 2 week trip in May/June. However, after looking at all of the rides that we would have to split up for, its just didn't make sense.

Disney, like everybody else, has a limited amount of capital. Using chunks of it on 54" rides is not in keeping with the philosophy that has made them so successful. If they do move even further in this direction, it would be a blatant money grab, not true Disney magic.

(Actually, my preliminary opinion of PW is that it is a blatant money grab, but its still a small blip on the radar screen, and I haven't seen it in person...)

 

[Bob O]

Now my family of 5 loves IOA as well as WDW!! And with one growing ankle biter left in the family i would love wdw to add a true thrill ride and not the watered down ones they have added!!! I think a true thrill ride if built with a 54" height limit would immediatlyresult in atenedanceat the park that added it, even at disney and would result in lines that would be very long and increased merchandise sales!!! Some families may not go on the ride due to the height limit but their are thousands upon thousand who would!!!
One thriller ride wont make families leave the park in "terror" at all! And a true thrill ride is also a family ride!!! Not every family has people that are under 54" in height!!

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by Bob O
And a true thrill ride is also a family ride!!! Not every family has people that are under 54" in height!!

No, it isn't. Further, height restrictions have nothing to do with it, except for children. The reason I - and a lot of other people - don't ride thrill rides is because of the "thrill" part; too fast, too scary, induces cardiac arrest, etc. Even if you build an attraction that most individuals can ride - say 80% - probably the vast majority of families will still have someone who cannot ride, or who just puts up with the thing for sake of the group. Even something with a 48" requirement excludes too many people.

More importantly, what so many people seem to be longing for are not ever faster thrills, but rather classic Disney attractions (you know, the kind of ride only Disney can create), in the style of Pirates of the Carribbean or maybe Journey into Imagination. These are the attractions you need if you want to attract families, who drop a lot of cash, into your theme park. Thrill rides have their place, perhaps, but that's just not the reason people go to WDW. We expect higher standards from Disney. Anyone with the $ can build a super-coaster; only Disney can sprinkle us with pixie dust in Fantasyland or on Spaceship Earth.

 

[Bob O]

Of course a thrill ride is a family ride!!!! At parks all over the country i see families gpoing on thrill ride/world class coasters!!!!
A higher standard from disney would be a thrill coaster with great theming!!!! Their is no reason pixis dust cant be added to a world class B&M hyper/inverted thrill ride and give some thing for everybody who goes to a disney park!!!!
I also would love a POC or a HM type attraction, but their is no reason both cant be done!!!!Ppeople who love thrill rides also drop a lot of cash at wdw(as i have) and their is no reason they shouldnt also have the enjoyment of a true thrill ride!!!!!

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

People travel thousands of miles for great, immersive "shows" like Pirates of the Caribbean, the Jungle Cruise, and the Haunted Mansion.

People travel dozens of miles to ride roller coasters at their local Six Flags park.

Should parks that attract 10 million or more visitors per year emulate parks that draw 1 or 2 million per year?

And regarding the verb, to theme... Imagineers should theme the queues and the signing and the FastPass machines. But the ride itself isn't something to be themed. The Pirates of the Caribbean ride is not a boat ride that's been themed. It's an immersive work of art and entertainment that guests happen to experience from a boat.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by Horace Horsecollar
People travel thousands of miles for great, immersive "shows" like Pirates of the Caribbean, the Jungle Cruise, and the Haunted Mansion.

People travel dozens of miles to ride roller coasters at their local Six Flags park.

Should parks that attract 10 million or more visitors per year emulate parks that draw 1 or 2 million per year?

Now lets think about Cedar Point. Only open a few months of the year and it attracts guest from all over the country and world for that matter. Currently they get 3 million a year and are basically open from May to September Now what if they were in a location where they could stay open year round? Suddenly they would be drawing the 10 million or more guest you speak of. All of that from non-themed Trill rides or mostly thrill rides.

Trill rides have there place in Disney just as much as Haunted Mansion does. The key is balancing the rides so that you have something to offer everyone. So we got the new Kiddie area in AK now we need somthing for the larger folks.

 

[CM Tinkerbell]

I can understand why people who love thrill rides would love to see more of them at Disney. However, my personal feeling is.....there are sooooo many parks who offer these type of attractions that to fill that "need" could easily be met by visiting any of these.

When you visit IOA, although it is themed very well, there's a completely different feel to this park. Disney offeres "immersive" attractions that, for the most part, everyone can enjoy together. After all, that is what Walt wanted for his parks. Disney is about the magic, about transporting you to another place. I never looked at Disney to provide a thrill, unless it was part of the show.

I too wish that we would see more of the classic Disney type attractions being added to the parks.

But that's just my opinion. For me personally, I never want Disney to turn in to an IOA. The day it does, my Disney addiction will most likely end.

 

[EUROPA]

" immersive attractions "
Funny I don't get that feeling from Teacups, Dumbo, Aladin, or the Speedway just to name a few.

Disney has no chance of becoming a Thrill ride type of venue. They are way to far behind. They have one attraction that might be considered a thrill ride ( Tower of Terror) maybe Rockin Roller Coaster( tame consdering others). Thats it. All of Disney other attractions are very tame considering other types of rides today. I love the stuff that Disney does espically with attarctions like HM, POC, the 3-d movies...Fantasmic...those are pure Disney and can only be found at Disney. I guess what we are saying here is that we would love to see what type of attraction Disney could do with a thrill ride. We seen what Universal can do with money alone..and a limited theme, they came up with Spider Man one of the best attractions in the world right now. Maybe that is what Mission space is going to be? Who knows until its done..and we see what corners they chose to cut. One thing is for sure though...Universal is not standing still and AK needs a major E ticket attractioin or two before it can be called a full day park.

 

[CM Tinkerbell]

Originally posted by EUROPA
" immersive attractions "
Funny I don't get that feeling from Teacups, Dumbo, Aladin, or the Speedway just to name a few.

Of course not. Every park needs some filler between their main attractions. But you can't deny that overall, that's what many of Disney's main attractions have been.

Spiderman at IOA is a great ride and not along the lines of what I would consider the typical theme park thrill ride. I could see Disney incorporating something like that easily.

 

[All Aboard]

Europa & BobO,

It's just not Disney's "thing". And, I believe the vast majority of their best customers don't want it to be. I think the point about limited capital and the direction it's spent is very on point. Drop $200 mil on a major thrill attraction with a 54" height requirement that cuts out most kids under the age of 9, almost all late baby boomers, all seniors, many women of all ages, and heck, lot's of men as well. Just to try to satisfy a segment of thrill seekers who already have so many choices around the country.

Major league financial error in my opinion.

I'd much rather see that $200 mil go into an unbelievable experience like Indy or Spiderman. Those are not 54" super high speed, major g pulling attractions, yet are quite thrilling and exciting to those who experience them. AND, they permit a much bigger chunk of the WDW travellers to enjoy them.

 

[EUROPA]

I think its all perception. I'm going to use Cedar Point here again...becuase it is the "Thrill Captial of the World ". Out of 70 attractions they only have 2 rides where you must be over 52" tall... and Millennium Force is not one of them. The 52" requirment, I think has more to do with the seat design than any other reason. Both the 52" attraction use the same seat. I'm not saying build a ride that 90% of the people will be too scared to get on. Just throw us a bone.