Screamscape reports...Forbidden Mountain!?!?!

[raidermatt]

The Monterey Aquarium really is beautiful, and its in a wonderful setting. We go about once a year, and if you get the chance Mr. Pirate, I recommend it as well.

The big question to be resolved is a fundamental issue with the place’s theme: is Animal Kingdom supposed to be ABOUT animals, or is Animal Kingdom an amusement park THEMED around animals.

My initial reaction was to agree with this statement. After all, its logical, and "clean", which I like.

However, I realize I do not have all the answers, and when it comes to entertainment, logical and clean just doesn't always cut it. To paint things broadly, I see three possible directions:

1- AK is ABOUT animals. In this case, adding an aquatic area makes the most sense. You just can't pretend to be about animals and leave out those that occupy 2/3 of the Earth. Most of the current rides/shows would have to go, or at least undergo extreme modifications. More things like the Mahrajah (sp) Trek and Pangini (sp) Walk would need to be added, possibly with Australian and South American mini-lands. Other types of educational and interactive "slow" attractions would be added. No BK.

2- AK is an amusement park themed toward animals. This lets most of the current rides/shows stay, but would probably require replacing the Trek/Walks, and "jazzing-up" the Safari. Allows for BK, an aquatic area, or Australia/South America.

3- AK continues to try to be both. I know some disagree, but I honestly think this can work. I think it DOES work now, its just that Disney has not really built on the foundation it had since 1999. Under this scenario, it would make sense to eventually add one or two lands/mini-lands. BK does make sense, but isn't necessary. An aquatica area, and another land themed area can work just as well. Add an E-ticket and a couple of minor attractions to Asia/Africa, mixing education and amusement.

But it seems they've written that idea off as a failure before ever finishing it. Kind of like building half a grocery store....and then declaring the whole concept of a grocery store a failure because people stop visiting it.

Lesley, while I disagree with the idea that BK is a necessity, I completely agree with your above statement. Whether its BK, Australia, or Aquatic, follow-through on the idea. Continue to develop the current areas, and finish* the park (but not with DR quality).

*(Stealing AV's use of footnotes) finish means complete it in scope, with the understanding that, per Walt, no park is ever finished.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

At least AK got the Tree of Life instead of the originally designed icon a three tier carousel. Thats right a CAROUSEL as the icon! The original concept is NOT always the best...

 

[Bob O]

Actually i think AV has made his points very well with people complaining about his tone but not responding well at all to the points he has made!!
And i would agree with lesley that BK is a must. Before the park was built they made a big thing of BK in all there PR and even had icons from that park built into the front entrance.
As for being educational i find little in the park that educates people as much as the average zoo and alot less than the major zoo's. As much as i love KS the big red part is just part of their pc movement as most of conservation station is.
They need to BK and even though dscoop says it is dead im not aware that he is in the boardromm where these decisions are meade. But he may end of being right because of disney's inability to be creative anymore and they would perfer to give us PW which can be found at most any amusement park.(though some may think this is as breathtaking as spiderman at IOA)

 

[raidermatt]

Forget what was planned. If for whatever reason they decided that BK is wrong, so be it. Focusing on BK is too narrow a focus.

There are two problems surrounding what has or has not been built at AK:

1- The park was designed to have a certain "amount" of things to do/see/experience. With BK and others cut, the park has less "value" than was intended. Therefore, if follows that attendance will be lower as well. I have no problem with opening an incomplete park to get the revenue stream started. However, when attendance for your incomplete park does not match what you expect at a complete park, you have to consider the fact that its NOT COMPLETE!

If initial guest reaction tells you that you are not on the right track, fine, adjust. After all, that's one of the reasons you opened the thing incomplete, so you can make those adjustments without ripping things out. However, you can't do virtually nothing for 3 years and expect things to get better.

No BK? Ok, what's replacing it that is on the same scope and is a better fit? A different land, or enhancements to the existing lands? Its clear you need to do something, so figure out what it is and DO IT. (DR is not even close to the scope of what was axed, but unless we have any leaked figures, we really don't know if it and the parade have impacted attendance).

2- The specific expectation of BK and other things based on the pre-promotion that included these things. (Including the current logos). Its always a mistake to set such specific expectations, then change course. Even if your changes are an improvement, some will be angry. When your changes are clearly cuts, its even worse.

 

[Peter Pirate]

I basically agree Matt, except consideration has to be given to the economic climate & the comanies economic situation since AK first opened. I know things cannot stop because of 'unspeakable events' but I think it realistic to believe that the focus, timetable or scope could be changed by the combination (or cumulative) affects of a myriad of odd circumstances that have been facing business and particularily the tourism industry over the past 2-3 years...

 

[raidermatt]

Those are good points, Peter. But it seems pretty clear that Disney was in no hurry to make any major additions to AK, even before the economy started to turn in late 2000. I can understand the delay given the way things have gone the last year and a half or so, but its not like they halted construction. They hadn't even started.

Maybe the expansion plans are sitting in the driver's seat, waiting for the green light. Until we see something actually happen, we can only wait.

But perhaps a bigger factor is the company's economic situation that you alluded to. One of the drawbacks, it seems, of being part of a media empire is that when that empire is not going well, you are going to see your profits sucked away to prop up those other areas. I'm hoping Eisner can turn ABC around, but since he's ultimately responsible for it going in the tank to begin with, I won't exactly be putting him in the Hall of Fame if he succeeds. Any TV industry savvy person should have seen the precarious position ABC was in over a year ago. Whether the Fox Family acquisition ends up being a good move remains to be seen, but clearly with the "mother ship" so short of quality shows, the timing certainly seems questionable.

I only digress because it is frustrating to have such failures used as a reason for hurting the parts of your business that are producing. It maybe an economic reality, but whose responsible for Disney getting hit so hard by that reality?

Another thing I should point out is that we are going on the assumption that Disney is disappointed with the performance of AK. We all know the attendance figures, so there's no point re-hashing those. What we don't know for sure is what management's current opinion is of those figures, and what positive affect AK had on the average length of stay. I know, we have some who have told us the news is all bad, but we have to at least entertain the possibility that mgmt considers the news at least adequate. Hence, nothing bigger or better than DR. No way to prove or disprove this, its just something that has to be considered.

 

[Bob O]

Some may have no problem with disney intentionally opening a park incomplete while charging full price, but i certainly do!!!
How can anybody agree that a park should be built incomplete yet still charge a full admission price???? Why should full admission be charged for a incomplete park??
Disney did this becasue they knew there faithful(car 1 people???) would stand beside them. But if lets say Universal did this w/IOA they would be outraged at how a company could act in such a manner for the sole purpose to make some money.

 

[Peter Pirate]

I don't know any car 1'ers on this board that wish ill will to US/IOA...Some of us don't necessarily like the place, some of us haven't embraced their movies but for me it's just taste. I wish US/IOA would do well because it would be incentive for Disney to do better (yes Landbaron it's too bad that Disney just doesn't do it on their own). US/IOA's failures IN NO WAY make Disney better IMO.

Again, AK doesn't seem like a half day park to me and no amount of name calling (Disney apologist, Disney lover, faithfull, whatever) is going to change that. You like IOA, others don't. Does it mean you are right? Or wrong? No, neither...It's just taste, so please don't tell me I don't have any by telling me I'm wrong...Or worse yet, senseless!

Lastly, I'll admit AK wasn't complete when it opened, but it is nearing "Disney" completion now, IMO (whether everyone likes it or not). Remember DL & MK didn't open complete and neither did MGM. The difference between MK & AK is tha MK was given many years to find its way and had no internet critics...Ak has only been with us three years!

 

[Lesley]

I really wanted to respond here...but after writing a huge post most of it disappeared.....this text window is weird for me...stuff keeps vanishing. Gonna have to bow out of this discussion...

I don't have time for this! And things were just getting good!

And Peter Pirate...its been over 4 years..AK opened on April 23rd (my birthday) 1998.

 

[space42]

The difference between MK & AK is tha MK was given many years to find its way and had no internet critics...Ak has only been with us three years!

5 years this April.

MK at 5 years was 1976. It already had 2 E-Ticket expansions Pirates and Space Mountain. Add that to the other E-Tickets Haunted Manison, 20k Leagues, Jungle Cruise, Small World. Plus MANY other A-B-C Tickets. I dont think it is even a close compairison. Just my $.02

 

[tfc3rid]

When DAK opened in 1998 I figured to give it 5 years. MGM opened in 1989 and in its 5th year, we see the Tower of Terror.

However, as we all know, the climate has changed. I had fully expected to see some major expansion at AK (not including Asia). I figured that the park experience would be enhanced with additional attractions, both animal related and pure fantasy, using new technologies, etc. However, based upon the recent track record and what we have seen put into AK, the optimism has obviously faded. This park, at least in the forseeable future will not be even close to what it could be. My glass half-full mindset tells me that someday (don't know when) AK will be a real experience...a true must see. While many of us (myself included) like it right now, I know it could be so much more.

 

[Peter Pirate]

I didn't mean for a direct comparison, only to illustrate the fact that MK was not complete either. AK is not supposed to be 'MK', even under the most grandiose interpretation.

3 years, 4 years, 6 years who cares? It's the big picture that matters. What will it look like in 10 or 20 years? Another post pointed out that we really don't know the current company desire for AK. Yes they want bottom line growth but maybe their projctions for the future vesus what they're willing to spend are in line. Maybe they have since come to the conclusion that additional parks like AK just WILL NOT add days to a guests vacation. Maybe the general thinking is that Orlando is saturated...Remember that glorious completely finished park IOA is still not drawing like was envisioned...Perhaps the plug has been pulled on the original AK and future big time expansion because it is not in Disney's best interest (in their opinion). We don't know these things for sure but the handwriting does seem to be there. We will get expansion, but it doesn't seem to be in the terms we Disney nuts generally want (me included).

I know we all hate to hear that projects get axed by the bean counters but it's always been that way. While Walt generally got what he wanted there were a lot of struggles and compromises with Roy along the way and this Company is not in the same situation in any way, shape or form as it was then. From being a privately held public to completely public, from going boldly where no one had dared go before, to a business landscape littered with competetion. From a world accepting of more simplistic offerings to a guest base needing faster, hipper & technologically advanced (all at the same time). From a time of unprecedented national growth to a time of unprecedented national stagnation (despite the tremendous growth of the top 5 percent). This business environment can only be compared in principle to that of the past. If Walt were here today (aside from being really old) he wouldn't have approched things exactly as he did then...Oh, I still think his mark would have been made (greatness does shine though) but it would have been dfferent, just as AK is diffeent.

I'm not trying to convince anybody that AK is good, we all have our own tastes and only time will tell, but AK is a park on the rise IMO, whether it keeps pace in the "E" ticket war or not, who knows...

 

[DisneyKidds]

Ah, the AK debate goes round and round again, same teams and all .

I thought I'd try and appease Mr.O and do more than poke at AV's apparent crankiness. However, I find it hard to expand on what the good Pirate has said.

I will say this, the tunnel vision focus on BK prevents some from seeing all the other wonderful things that AK offers, and other possibilities that might make just as good additions. Furthermore, AK is not a loser of a park that just appeals to a set of Disney apologists who 'get it'. Oh, wait, maybe it is - there are just 8 million of them.

On the bright side, I am happy to hear of AV taking over the ABC ship . It can only get better under his tenure. However, the real value will come when he has Disney divest itself of ABC. Then more of the Disney focus can be placed on the parks where it belongs .

 

[raidermatt]

Some may have no problem with disney intentionally opening a park incomplete while charging full price, but i certainly do!!!

Exactly. Many do. And that's the point that has to be understood and expected going in. The fact that many didn't/don't consider AK complete should not be a surprise, but it still makes sense to open it and let those who are satisfied contribute to the revenue stream, allowing you to show some return and make stockholders happy.

You take the feedback from both those that are happy and those that aren't and base further expansion plans on that.

The problems come when you axe the expansion plans, or scale them down severely.

Perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the change occured somewhere in the process. Regardless, focusing on the fact that is was opened incomplete is barking up the wrong tree. The fact that many STILL view it as incomplete is the problem. (pending 2002 attendance figures...)

 

[Another Voice]

Yes, the Cranky One has returned.

The reason we care about the size and scope of Animal Kingdom is because we happen to be paying for the tickets now. What the place looks like in 10 or 20 years really doesn’t help the average family squeeze fifty bucks out enjoyment out of the place today. The other point is that Disney has shown little enthusiasm for any expansion to AK that is the same size as the additions that were added to MK, Epcot and the Studios.

When you look at Disney as a business you have to use a different perspective than looking at it as a fan. Yes, you may love everything that Animal Kingdom offers, but recognize that is a personal opinion only. The business side requires that you look at what the majority of people like and don’t like – a theme park is mass entertainment after all. The hardest part about entertainment is understanding that your tastes may not always match the public’s, and that you have to give the public what it wants. And if you give them something they don’t like, for whatever reason, you have to change that or accept their rejection.

Attendance at Animal Kingdom is lower than had been hoped and the distribution patterns throughout the property are much different than expected. It was publicly stated that the goal for Dino-Rama was to increase the guest’s length of stay. There have been discounts and special promotions. None of this points to a park either on the rise or a park that needs to expand because it’s popular.

Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom were both opened as “complete parks”. They were designed and built to provide a guest a full day’s experience. Yes, expansion did happen as it should at all parks. But ‘Space Mountain’ was never planned as a Day One attraction and there was never any intention of building ‘Pirates’ at all. Even Disney/MGM Studios was opened as a complete park, albeit a small one. There were no expansion plans when the place opened. The justification of Animal Kingdom’s current size by saying that the Magic Kingdom did the same thing is, well, a misstatement (I’ll try to be less cranky).

Animal Kingdom started off as a modest sized park with more initial attractions than Disney/MGM. Even the current Disney can learn from their mistakes. But other areas of the corporation required money and the park suffered through a series of cutbacks. Out of the five areas that were to have originally opened, one was postponed a year, one was cut in half and one was canned entirely. By Disney’s own relaxed standards of what constituted a “full day” - the place was short.

The public feels that and they act appropriately. The real question is will Disney respond to the public’s perceived shortcomings or will they continue to let Animal Kingdom drift along. As long as there’s park hopping, they will always get a crowd – well, a crowd for half a day anyway.

 

[YoHo]

I would Just like to Point out, that During the Last Recession, Disney Built
Mickey's Birthday land
Disney MGM Studios and many of its expansions
Splash Mountain
A whole lot of Hotels
A few Water Parks
Redid Pleasure Island.
Not to mention the Successful movies and the rest of the company.

Don't give me this Disney can't spend the money, because of the economy. They did in the past and it worked like Gangbusters.
The Company then decided to NOT spend the money on a complete AK during some of the best Economic times in the recent past.

So don't give me this economy BS!!!
It's a load of Horse doots and you know it. They are Scared.
Eisner is Scared.
They could and should spend that money and it would lead to results. The American People would spend their money even during rough times if they preceived that it was worth it. That's What Americans do.

Make it worh their time and money.

 

[DisneyKidds]

OK, lets just say for arguments sake that AK opened 'incomplete' and should have had BK from the start. That would have added an E ticket, maybe a show, a couple of smaller rides and atractions, etc. Do you honestly believe that AK would draw 10 million visitors because it had one additional land? The only place you get AK half day discussions is on boards like this. 99.9% of the average public has no preconceived notion that AK is a half day park that is keeping them from coming. They don't say 'hey, the attendance figures are not what was projected so the park must be a failure and we aren't going'. Furthermore, while BK may have added another hour and a half to some people's visit, it would not have appealed to everyone. If you only spend 4 hours there now, five and a half with BK doesn't make it a full day. For some who consider the park a half day now, they may have considered it the same with BK. Some who consider AK a full day now, they may not have spent any more time. For some, AK might have been a two dayer. There seems to be so much desire to label the AK. Failure. Incomplete. Half Day. It is none of these, and so long as you keep looking for a label you may never see what is actually inside the package.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Look closer Yoho I didn't say these were the specific reasons for the current Disney mindset, I was trying to point out that the economic status of both the country the company combined with many other factors could have been the culprit.

At one time a Disney/Yahoo merger was discussed here and elsewhere. This was in the midst of great economic times and Yahoo appeared to be a company of the future a company to be reccond with...Boy aren't we glad that merger didn't take place...

I'm not saying the economy (good or bad) are specfcally directing Disney's movement, but in this economy, in which we have no current clue where it is going, with a Company in trouble, is it surprising that they are playing it close to the vest with the Parks? That in no way explains the huge waste of time & money that apparently went into PH, but we'retalking about Parks and AK here...

I agree that Eisner appears to be runnng scared, but that and in and of itself is still relevent.

As for AK we just have a huge chasam of difference and neither side is budging. I recognize that my love of AK is personal and not necessarily reflective of the whole, but I reiterate that I believe AK's stock is on the rise (based on the huge crowds I always encounter there). But more to the point what of these discussions is not predicated on our own personal tastes?

 

[Another Voice]

Well Mr. Pirate, you do have to ask yourself about the following trend:

The Magic Kingdom was designed and built at the height of the Vietnam era of social unrests when Disney could not have been more “square”.

EPCOT Center was designed and built in the middle of stagflation, gas rationing and economic turmoil that really shut down most vacation travel.

Yet Animal Kingdom was designed and built at the very height of the Lying ‘90s when money flowed freely, people wallowed in disposable income and everything from water to toilet paper was “designer branded”.

I will agree with you that the long term success of the Company has little to do with general economic conditions. But success has a lot to do with quality leadership. Economics may simply be a convenient excuse for people to use to cover up other shortcomings.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Here's another take AV.

You imply that AK shows failure in the fact that it has not performed as well as MK or Epcot (mind you, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this) while it has enjoyed a much more favorable economic and social environment.

Maybe, just maybe, the trials and tribulations you think might have hindered the MK and Epcot successes were actually part of the reason they were as successful as they were. The height of the Vietnam era, things were a mess, social unrest, unreal reality all around, etc., etc. Disney may have been 'square', but where better to get away from the realities of the time. Likewise, with Epcot, WDW was a somewhat proven commodity at the time. People had limited resources for vacations. If you are going to go - go with the sure thing, the best value.

Now enter AK in its era of free flowing money and relative harmony throughout much of the world. Perhaps this was a detriment to the AK (as well as a hindrance to other Disney and Orlando parks) as people were more free to travel the world and had the resources to do it. In hard times, if people can do anything at all, they are likely to go for the safe bet. In the best of times they take more risks and explore other options.

There are many factors that afect business decisions and performance. The economy is only one. Social environment is one. How people react to the economy and social environment is another. How businesses plan for future economic events is yet another. Plus, many factors that have nothing to do with the economy or social environment.

BTW, there is no motive to look for excuses and hide shortcomings, just a desire to see the big picture.