Thrill Park at Disney

All four parks, waterparks, and other magic in Central Florida

Moderator: Moderators

napastoy
Dumbo Flying Elephants Tamer
Dumbo Flying Elephants Tamer
Posts: 135
Joined: Mar Thu 19, 2009 1:13 am
Location: Canon City, Co

Post by napastoy » Apr Sat 25, 2009 11:18 pm

c
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?
Disney itself in many moves and revamps has already done things that could be construed as "taking away from the dream of Disney." I think we need to move past that stage of thought. Again what I stress is that a thrill park addition won't change anything. You choose to go to whatever park you wish. If they were going to build a thrill park inside the MK then, yes, I could understand opposition there.

As for breaking up families, that is a decision the families themselves make. Again, nobody is "forced" to do anything. I remember ditching my family when I got older and had friends along. It was no big deal...you picked a time and place and met back up. And as wired as we are now with Blackberries and other devices, no one is out of reach.

Nobody "expects Disney to do anything." The people advocating for a thrill park are just like the people who want other things at Disney that are not now in place. It is the idea that someone is un-Disney or should just shut up and go somewhere else that I have a problem with.

When they were thinking Animal Kingdom, why not just have told people "Go to Busch Gardens." We they added "Mount Everest" why not just have told people "Go to Islands of Adventures." Because they don't want people to leave the world and spend that money elsewhere. It's a business and they are in competition. You do what helps you survive.

Whether or not you feel you have to go "everywhere" in WDW to get your money's worth is again a personal choice. I could go to Epcot alone and be fine and feel I got my money's worth. I personally didn't think they needed to add another water park, but I never suggested if some people did want a more detailed water park they ought to just go find one in Orlando.

Toontown/Mickey's Land is the example you used, that was built was built basically to appeal (cater) to younger kids.

I had no problem with that even though by the time it was built my daughter was grown and it had no real appeal for us. But in no way shape or form, did we ever state it was wrong to build it because there's nothing there that we wanted to see or experience.

We just don't go there. End of story. Lord, knows I can think of a million other things the money it cost to build that area could have been spent on. If they built a separate Pooh Park for example, that was basically the same as Toontown, would I go? Nope. If they built a separate thrill park would I go? Nope. Do I go to the water parks? Nope. Do I golf? Nope. None of that appeals to me. Do I feel cheated and like I don't get my money's worth ? Nope.

We are all about being able to experience whatever we like at Disney World because it was ( and is still being) designed to offer something for EVERYBODY in different ways. It doesn't lessen the overall park when they add something that may cater to a specific group or may be a step in a new direction for the company to take as long as it is well done. When it is poorly done, that is when the magic starts to disappear.

All of us want different things at Disney, some traditional, some not. With Disney as it now stands, we are getting a mixture of both. Change is hard to accept. I never wanted to see Peoplemover, Skyway, Mr Toad, the Subs, etc disappear from the different parks. I don't like seeing Disney characters shoved in attractions they have no business being in just so it appeals to a younger crowd.

But the bottom line is business and they are doing what they need to do to compete.

Not all these changes are welcomed or something I personally need or want, but then it is not just about me.
"“Por favor, mantengase alejado de las puertas."

Jacca5660
Submarine Voyage Captain
Submarine Voyage Captain
Posts: 6842
Joined: Jun Sun 25, 2006 12:11 pm
Location: Chattanooga Tn
Contact:

Post by Jacca5660 » Apr Sun 26, 2009 1:16 am

napastoy wrote:c
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?
Disney itself in many moves and revamps has already done things that could be construed as "taking away from the dream of Disney." I think we need to move past that stage of thought. Again what I stress is that a thrill park addition won't change anything. You choose to go to whatever park you wish. If they were going to build a thrill park inside the MK then, yes, I could understand opposition there.

As for breaking up families, that is a decision the families themselves make. Again, nobody is "forced" to do anything. I remember ditching my family when I got older and had friends along. It was no big deal...you picked a time and place and met back up. And as wired as we are now with Blackberries and other devices, no one is out of reach.

Nobody "expects Disney to do anything." The people advocating for a thrill park are just like the people who want other things at Disney that are not now in place. It is the idea that someone is un-Disney or should just shut up and go somewhere else that I have a problem with.

When they were thinking Animal Kingdom, why not just have told people "Go to Busch Gardens." We they added "Mount Everest" why not just have told people "Go to Islands of Adventures." Because they don't want people to leave the world and spend that money elsewhere. It's a business and they are in competition. You do what helps you survive.

Whether or not you feel you have to go "everywhere" in WDW to get your money's worth is again a personal choice. I could go to Epcot alone and be fine and feel I got my money's worth. I personally didn't think they needed to add another water park, but I never suggested if some people did want a more detailed water park they ought to just go find one in Orlando.

Toontown/Mickey's Land is the example you used, that was built was built basically to appeal (cater) to younger kids.

I had no problem with that even though by the time it was built my daughter was grown and it had no real appeal for us. But in no way shape or form, did we ever state it was wrong to build it because there's nothing there that we wanted to see or experience.

We just don't go there. End of story. Lord, knows I can think of a million other things the money it cost to build that area could have been spent on. If they built a separate Pooh Park for example, that was basically the same as Toontown, would I go? Nope. If they built a separate thrill park would I go? Nope. Do I go to the water parks? Nope. Do I golf? Nope. None of that appeals to me. Do I feel cheated and like I don't get my money's worth ? Nope.

We are all about being able to experience whatever we like at Disney World because it was ( and is still being) designed to offer something for EVERYBODY in different ways. It doesn't lessen the overall park when they add something that may cater to a specific group or may be a step in a new direction for the company to take as long as it is well done. When it is poorly done, that is when the magic starts to disappear.

All of us want different things at Disney, some traditional, some not. With Disney as it now stands, we are getting a mixture of both. Change is hard to accept. I never wanted to see Peoplemover, Skyway, Mr Toad, the Subs, etc disappear from the different parks. I don't like seeing Disney characters shoved in attractions they have no business being in just so it appeals to a younger crowd.

But the bottom line is business and they are doing what they need to do to compete.

Not all these changes are welcomed or something I personally need or want, but then it is not just about me.
GREAT post!! I totally agree!!
"Our dreams can come true - if we have the courage to pursue them" WED

"There's a fine prow on that steamer, let's climb aboard her!" Fireside

"You're off the map mateys..Here there be SeaMonsters!!"

The original "LICENSE MAYHEM MARAUDER!!ImageImage

HauntedMansion74
Alice in Wonderland Wonderer
Alice in Wonderland Wonderer
Posts: 48
Joined: Feb Sun 22, 2009 10:18 am

Post by HauntedMansion74 » Apr Mon 27, 2009 11:26 am

I totally agree with everyone! Disney is great at making all parks great for all ages! What they could do is come up with a way to maybe integrate thrill rides that could also carry smaller kids with a parent seat next to them! It would cost alot Im sure but it would be a first were all could ride! special seats a couple in a car! something like that! either that or make sure there are rides for everyone!
Who is the fairest in the land! Snow White is the fairest in the land!! We all have something great to add to the world which makes us all the fairest in the land!!!

Mr.ToadWildRider
Flight to the Moon Flight Director
Flight to the Moon Flight Director
Posts: 1178
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: No where in particular (okay...Massachusetts)

Post by Mr.ToadWildRider » Apr Mon 27, 2009 12:42 pm

Jacca5660 wrote: 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.
I don't think any of my comments have been remotely "almost abusive." If I implied Disney doesn't cater in small ways to certain groups, then I apologize. But there's no park for "G*a*ys," there's no park for just families with young children, just like there's no park for just thrill seekers. But they do cater to these groups, ALL of them, in various ways. There is content spread throughout the World for everyone to enjoy, and while some attractions are too kiddie for older families there are several areas that are too mature for the toddler/elementary aged children as well.

I feel that what I'm saying is being grossly misconstrued as advocating for "stroller brigades." That couldn't be further from the truth. I'm 24 years old. I don't have my own family. When I go to the parks I'll ride ToT, RnR, Space Mountain etc. multiple times and pass up the Toontowns, the Camp Minnie Mickey's, the Disney LIVE on stage etc. I would enjoy and welcome more thrilling content than more Pooh Playgrounds and Aladdin's Carpets. What I'm saying is I don't think an entire thrill park a) comports with what WDW is, b) is financially responsible to the stockholders which I'm proud to say I'm included in that group, and c) would take away from other existing parks/future full-family oriented enterprises.

Let me touch upon the latter comment, and this will also I believe speak to Napatoy's comments as well. Let's say the imagineers develop 3 amazing, thrill caliber rides (think ToT or even Splash Mountain which is considered a "thrill ride" by many). They've got the ideas, they've got the funding green lights, they've got it all planned out. But they drop all 3 in a park that has 42-56" requirements on 85% of the rides. You have kids that don't meet the requirement or don't like thrill rides. Do you then have to forfeit the ability to ride said ride? Surely you won't be shelling out hundreds for admission if your kids don't want to ride some of the rides. Are you going to say "Johnny hang out here in Fantasy Land with your little sister, you're 8 now you're big enough to take care of her in Disney World we're going to grab a bus and use our park hopper to go into Thrill Parkland that you don't want to go to so we can see Amazing Ride X"? It becomes even more complex when your family isn't just Johnny and lil Susie in her stroller but also Todd the thirteen year old who DOES want to do more mature things. Do you just send HIM by himself to a park unaccompanied? Do you split the family for the whole day? So it's your "choice" to not go to the thrill park, but that's one heck of a choice for a lot of families who may only get one chance to bring their clan down to the World. Hey kids! We're going to Disney World! We won't be together though because the parks are all so different in terms of scare/thrill factor so have fun! I can't wait to see the pictures from your, I mean our trip! Napa you may have had the luxury of having friends with you on your trip but that is something most families don't have. Most families have kids of various ages. I just think it's ironic that the people are so zealously advocating for such a park say they do so for the families with teenagers; I think by herding all future thrilling content (or at least the vast majority of it) into another park would actually be a diservice to those families. Now you've got a teenager who wants to go to that park but that leaves the family with the choice of either sending them by themselves and thus missing one of the biggest reasons for a family trip, togetherness, or telling him "sorry."

So EPCOT doesn't have people living in it. So parts of the parks have become giant ads for dvd sales. So Disney Execs have had a nasty recent history of cutting quality to save on costs. These are all sins if you will in the house of Disney. But the cardinal sin is separating the family. If Disney isn't already rolling over in his grave, this thrill park would surely send him into spin-dry.

I've no problem with thrill rides, they're my favorites I'm just saying put them within parks that have something for EVERYONE. Do families stay 100% together within a park? No, but it's a little easy to re-connect after an hour or two separating into thrillers/shoppers/characters/mellow riders then having to hop a bus or jump in their car or take a monorail.

Ironically, the comment
napastoy wrote:If they were going to build a thrill park inside the MK then, yes, I could understand opposition there.
is something I wouldn't oppose sort of. If they built up a land within MK for thrills then MK would expand it's appeal to larger families and I'd be for it. You can enjoy Peter Pan's Flight and Dumbo with your loved ones and still ride new exciting thrill rides.


As for this:
napastoy wrote:Nobody "expects Disney to do anything." The people advocating for a thrill park are just like the people who want other things at Disney that are not now in place. It is the idea that someone is un-Disney or should just shut up and go somewhere else that I have a problem with.


I'd like you to point out anywhere in any of my posts where I even suggested anyone "should just shut up"? If it's because I said in one of my earlier posts that someone seeking only thrill rides should seek Busch Gardens I find that a bit of a stretch of the imagination, no offense. What I was saying is there are options for that kind of trip all over this country. Disney is special because it's not like that. To take your own line "You choose to go to whatever park you wish" - exactly, so why do you wish so badly to bring in an element that is so common to a place that is so unique as Disney? There are Six Flags dotting the landscape, there's, as I noted, a Busch Gardens within a short drive from WDW, there are the Cedar Points of the world. I'm saying you're the one choosing to go to WDW when there are so many other options you choose NOT to go to. Why is it such a bad thing to keep Disney different?

You ask why when Everest was added we weren't shouting go to IOA and when they added animals to DAK we didn't shout go to Busch Gardens - it's because DAK has Everest, and it has the animals, and it has Nemo, and it has the Bone Yard, and it has ITTBAB and Dinosaur and a mix for everyone unlike those two parks you named. And that's my point throughout this whole thread.

cinderella75
Fantasyland Theater Projectionist
Fantasyland Theater Projectionist
Posts: 182
Joined: Feb Sun 22, 2009 9:54 am
Location: Maryland

Post by cinderella75 » May Mon 11, 2009 4:12 pm

Disney is a grea thrill park. They have rides for everybody at any age :wave:
When you BELIEVE and have FAITH, WISHES and DREAMS do come TRUE :-)
Image

napastoy
Dumbo Flying Elephants Tamer
Dumbo Flying Elephants Tamer
Posts: 135
Joined: Mar Thu 19, 2009 1:13 am
Location: Canon City, Co

Post by napastoy » May Tue 12, 2009 12:52 am

Mr.ToadWildRider wrote: What I'm saying is I don't think an entire thrill park a) comports with what WDW is, b) is financially responsible to the stockholders which I'm proud to say I'm included in that group, and c) would take away from other existing parks/future full-family oriented enterprises.

We're going to Disney World! We won't be together though because the parks are all so different in terms of scare/thrill factor so have fun! I can't wait to see the pictures from your, I mean our trip! Napa you may have had the luxury of having friends with you on your trip but that is something most families don't have. Most families have kids of various ages. I just think it's ironic that the people are so zealously advocating for such a park say they do so for the families with teenagers; I think by herding all future thrilling content (or at least the vast majority of it) into another park would actually be a diservice to those families. Now you've got a teenager who wants to go to that park but that leaves the family with the choice of either sending them by themselves and thus missing one of the biggest reasons for a family trip, togetherness, or telling him "sorry."

Do families stay 100% together within a park? No, but it's a little easy to re-connect after an hour or two separating into thrillers/shoppers/characters/mellow riders then having to hop a bus or jump in their car or take a monorail.



As for this:
napastoy wrote:Nobody "expects Disney to do anything." The people advocating for a thrill park are just like the people who want other things at Disney that are not now in place. It is the idea that someone is un-Disney or should just shut up and go somewhere else that I have a problem with.


I'd like you to point out anywhere in any of my posts where I even suggested anyone "should just shut up"? To take your own line "You choose to go to whatever park you wish" - exactly, so why do you wish so badly to bring in an element that is so common to a place that is so unique as Disney? There are Six Flags dotting the landscape, there's, as I noted, a Busch Gardens within a short drive from WDW, there are the Cedar Points of the world. I'm saying you're the one choosing to go to WDW when there are so many other options you choose NOT to go to. Why is it such a bad thing to keep Disney different?
To answer a few of your concerns:

I'm a stockholder too. Also a former employee of Disney for more than 10 years. "As for the luxury of friends along on a trip".... they paid their own way...so I think luxury might be the wrong word.

Again, advocating for a different kind of park is not done to "separate" families. You kind of seem to be stuck in that one mind set. Again, not everyone who goes to Disney has kids. Also again, families already do separate on many occasions and I think again, it is no big deal. No one is advocating a "family" being separated for the entire length of stay. Again, it's a personal decision that is made by each family.

And since each family is different, you will have different kids at different ages who can indeed go to different parks on their own. This already happens at WDW frequently.

As for WDW being "unique" Walt Disney himself said "The more you like yourself, the less you are like anyone else, which makes you unique."


I kinda think that pertains to WDW and DLR...The more you like it, the less it is like anyplace else, which makes it unique. It's not just the attractions, the shows or characters that make it unique, we as fans and supporters of the dreams and concepts and innovations at Disney make it unique. In our minds it will always be "unique" regardless of the physical attractions.

Again, Disney is not just about people with families as Walt Disney himself so stated. And I will leave you with the words of the great man himself:

You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway.
Walt Disney

I would rather entertain and hope that people learned something than educate people and hope they were entertained.
Walt Disney


I do not like to repeat successes, I like to go on to other things.
Walt Disney
"“Por favor, mantengase alejado de las puertas."

Jacca5660
Submarine Voyage Captain
Submarine Voyage Captain
Posts: 6842
Joined: Jun Sun 25, 2006 12:11 pm
Location: Chattanooga Tn
Contact:

Post by Jacca5660 » May Tue 12, 2009 4:05 am

I think one point we are all missing (including myself), is that if Disney did ever build a thrill park, it would be family friendly. I do mean family in the broadest sense. Let face it Disney for the most part tries to make everything inclusive.
"Our dreams can come true - if we have the courage to pursue them" WED

"There's a fine prow on that steamer, let's climb aboard her!" Fireside

"You're off the map mateys..Here there be SeaMonsters!!"

The original "LICENSE MAYHEM MARAUDER!!ImageImage

DaRkNeSs
Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln Usher
Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln Usher
Posts: 247
Joined: Feb Fri 20, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Maryland

Good point!

Post by DaRkNeSs » May Tue 12, 2009 8:25 am

Jacca5660 wrote:I think one point we are all missing (including myself), is that if Disney did ever build a thrill park, it would be family friendly. I do mean family in the broadest sense. Let face it Disney for the most part tries to make everything inclusive.
Thats a good point! but I still wouldnt want to see Disney "copy" other parks that are thrill based! Would much rather see them incorperate thrills rides into current parks and themes. :figment::donald:
Look for the Bear necessities!!! Trust in me, just in me Shut your eyes and trust in me You can sleep safe and sound Knowing I am around!!
Image
Image

Post Reply