To me, this is the biggest problem with having 4 parks, especially in this age of ultra themed lands. You can only do so much at one time.
3 parks is hopefully the sweet spot that Universal is aiming for.
Future of Animal Kingdom?
- Thread starter TheOrlandoGeek8312
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
To me, this is the biggest problem with having 4 parks, especially in this age of ultra themed lands. You can only do so much at one time.
3 parks is hopefully the sweet spot that Universal is aiming for.
No.
Even the great Imagineer Joe Rohde will tell you no animals with pants...except the Fab 5. They do not belong in DAK. Zootopia would fit best in Hollywood Studios....Magic Kingdom second.
- Sep 2, 2012
- 812
- 1,186
Trust me, I'm the first guy to want Dinoland U.S.A. as it is now to leave town and never come back, but removing Dinosaurs from the park completely is a bad move. Kids love dinosaurs, and dinosaurs sell no matter where they are.
- Jun 21, 2016
- 3,802
- 8,322
If they were to grab some koalas and other animals that were rescues from the Australian fires, they could leverage their marketing also.
- Aug 7, 2018
- 7,099
- 9,095
Considering Aladdin, Beatuy and The Beast, and The Lion King don't even have dedicated lands in states or really anywhere else, this is 100% accurate lol. Kinda mind boggling when you think of it.
I fully expect Zootopia to come to WDW or DLR however, way too popular of an original film to not be used in the parks. Not everyday you have a new billion dollar animated franchise to boot.
- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,123
- 47,012
- Dec 24, 2015
- 873
- 1,501
100% disagree, and I bolded the word which is the issue: can.
Could Disney move forward on additional attractions at AK? Yes. Will they? Probably not.
They probably don't feel the ROI is high enough to warrant further investment into that park. That's the same reason they've always held back.
I don't agree with the idea that 'three is the magic number for theme parks.' In fact, I don't agree with the premise at all (there is no magic number). It would be like asking, "how many Starbucks can you have?" Imagine everyone wakes up tomorrow and becomes coffee addicts.. you think Starbucks won't open more stores?
Disney manages many parks worldwide, as does Universal. Their global leadership is able to manage them, and as they grow, they'll add leaders geographically/park specific as needed. I'm sure many new leadership positions will open as Epic Universe rises, it won't just be Bill Davis doing everything himself.
The Creative/Imagineering teams will expand to keep up with the demand on projects. If they're able to build a dozen or more attractions at EU over the next few years then clearly we're seeing there's support for this kind of consistent expansion.
If tourism to Orlando doubles (again), Disney and Universal would be stupid to stop where they are at now. They can raise prices and expand in their existing parks, but the next logical step would be to open more parks.
If Disney aren't prepared to further invest in AK because they don't think that ROI is high enough to warrant it then they certainly won't think that a ROI is high enough for a new park.
Tourism to Orlando cannot have exponential growth. The parks at some stage are going to be too overcrowded and they're raising prices now to try and stop that growth with their current set up.
You can't compare a coffee shop to a theme park. The Starbucks in Disney are constantly mobbed, why don't they build another one in the same parks?
The real danger is that all it takes is another 9/11 or economic collapse for the arse to completely fall out the industry and the bigger they are, the bigger they fall.
- Dec 24, 2015
- 873
- 1,501
I think you misunderstood my post, and I think that's my fault. I can understand my post reads "Disney needs a fifth park now!"
That's not what I intended to say. I'm mostly replying to this concept that "3 is the sweet spot" for number of theme parks to manage.
Here's your quote from earlier in this thread: "To me, this is the biggest problem with having 4 parks, especially in this age of ultra themed lands. You can only do so much at one time. 3 parks is hopefully the sweet spot that Universal is aiming for."
This is what I disagree with. First, Animal Kingdom (WDW Park #4) itself was not a bad idea. Three was not a 'sweet spot' that they ruined with AK. The park itself turned out to be a big success, considering it's one of the most visited theme parks in the world. I'm sure you agree that the issue was that Disney didn't properly maintain the parks they had... But this wasn't because they had four instead of three. It was largely due to two consecutive recessions which impacted the tourism industry, as well as some perceived 'failures' elsewhere (Eurodisney, DCA, Disney Quest, etc). This made them have cold feet everywhere, not just WDW. This would have happened even if they had 3 parks instead of 4 in Orlando from 2000-2015.
That being said, I believe with enough demand, Universal could go to four, Disney can manage their current four or could even go to five. And in these collective 9 parks, Universal and Disney can build 1 attraction per park every couple of years. Will they? That's debatable. But that's not the point. They could build and manage them (if demand were to ever support it).
(Note: the "can" part is largely to do with their ability which includes funds, land, IPs, third party partnerships (like construction companies), leadership, etc. But "will they" is their willingness, (motivation), which are impacted by things like risk and ROI.)
I mentioned price in my post. But at a certain point, raising price doesn't quite make sense. It's just like any other product, at a certain point it makes more sense to increase supply to keep up with demand. I'm more than happy to discuss further on this but it gets us off topic.
You can compare anything depending on how you are comparing. My example works fine.
If demand for coffee increases, Disney could (would) easily add more coffee locations, they don't need to add Starbucks. Note that Universal and Disney have both expanded their coffee locations over the years (including Starbucks). If Starbucks had a choice, they'd probably add more Starbucks to the parks, but it's not up to them.
I agree. But this risk hasn't stopped them from growing. And this risk does not validate your point that four was too many for Disney to manage.
I agree.
Disney believes a fourth park was a good idea, and I agree with Disney. Three is not a sweet spot. A large company like Disney can manage four or more theme parks in one geographic region (largely just depends on demand). That's really all I'm trying to say.
Last edited:
I agree that it comes back down to ROI for Disney and also think that they don't particularly care about guest satisfaction. Further, they keep adding rides that cost rather large sums of money. $100M for a dark ride? I can see that. When you start spending the amounts that they have spent on Pandora and Galaxy's Edge, you can't afford to add anything else. I appreciate the full immersion that they are shooting for always end up thinking, "Okay, how many individual rides could they have added for the $1.0B that they dropped on two rides and one elaborately themed land?" While I realize that not everyone feels that way, it is just my opinion. At the end of the day, people want rides to experience the magic for the price of the ticket. The other experiences, shows and parades, round out the full experience but a new parade won't drive attendance up.
Another problem is that the lines are so long that trying to experience a new ride becomes more trouble than it is worth. If I'm at Animal Kingom for ten hours and Flight of Passage is a two hour wait, one-fifth of my day was spent on one ride. This gets back to one of my main gripes (along with FP+). Building more rides creates more opportunities and improves overall guest satisfaction. It should increase attendance but that isn't necessarily a given. Thus, unless Disney management feels that the new ride will drive attendance increases, they are not always in favor of adding rides. If they don't add the rides though, the parks get stale and the attractions lose their luster and popularity. Then, Disney has to react and, by that time, they are fighting from behind to regain what they lost.
Of course, this is the opinion of someone who is not in their conferences and meetings about rides. It is definitely not an informed opinion.
Pandora is far better as a theme park land than it will ever be as a movie.
I would have to agree with this...It's absolutely stunning
I agree too, was lucky enough to do DVC members moonlight night recently and spent a good account of time in there with minimal crowds, the detail, kinetic energy and lighting creates a perfect but different ambience, a far better land than galaxies edge IMHO. Galaxies edge feels sterile in comparison.
I enjoyed it in the evening also. It's quite beautiful during the day, but unlike many, I actually preferred the evening.....Yes, loved the moonlit 'ambiance'. Perfect when you have your beautiful blonde lady with you. :thumbsup: :jawdrop:
Joke's on you, Batuu is a junkyard desert planet, so it's totally in theme
