Sure you can. All you have to do is increase capacity. One attraction with a high capacity can gobble up crowds.mousemaniacs wrote: 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.
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.
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.mousemaniacs wrote: 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.
Please elaborate. I just don't see how this would round out anything.mousemaniacs wrote: Everything else is great, but it would really round out the offering.
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.
Only to the extent that you can't please everyone all of the time.mousemaniacs wrote: No, it wouldn't appeal to everyone, but no single thing at Disney does.
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.
How is building only one type of attraction in a single park well-rounded?mousemaniacs wrote: We just wanting a more well-rounded package.
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.
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.mousemaniacs wrote: 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.
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.mousemaniacs wrote: 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.
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.
You are kind of building an argument against the thrill park idea here.yodiwan1 wrote: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.
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.