Tropical Americas w/ Encanto & Indiana Jones to replace DinoLand?

[GA-MBIT]

I don’t know Indy as an IP well enough… can dinosaurs be included?

This is not becomming a Disney vs Universal conversation, but giving Universal basically full control of Dino’s in theme parks is plain idiotic. They still sell, and always will. Just one example, but my cousins son just recently saw Jurassic Park for the first time and we’ve all been told for Christmas to get him, direct quote, “literally anytbing dinosaur related.”

I love this ride and can live with a replacement though, but like, depends.

Indy is an adventure series inspired by old-school serials. About every film revolves around Indy being urged out of his regular job as a college professor or doing random side hustles and into searching and recovering a mythical and fabled McGuffin before it lands into the wrong hands. The goal usually being that "this belongs in a museum", and not for use in warfare or the like. Whether that is the Ark of the Covenant or Holy Grail from the Nazis, the "mesoamerican" Crystal Skulls from Soviet Russia, or some other mythical powers. The films often start off relatively grounded in the real world, with some over the top elements sprinkled here or there, until the door blasts open to reveal that the mystical prop is not only real, but holds untold powers that usually zap the bad guys, while Indy and his gang rolls and hits 20s for dexterity and constitution haha. Canonically in the Indy universe, time travel devices, the Christian God, Aliens, and other deities all exist in the grounded real world.

I don't think it'd be too out of the question for Indiana to be protecting a squad of extinct animals, even Dinosaurs. It's just pulpy enough to mesh in my mind with the series that exists now. Indiana is a well-read and intelligent man, and I think it'd be neat to start off with a class lecture on extinction and/or Dinosaurs before getting whisked off by the crazy plot. Similar to the way each film starts with him teaching the class about the McGuffin. Of course, he's a professor of Archaeology and not Biology or anything like that so maybe it's less in his wheelhouse, but I don't think people are gonna be leaving a ride called "Indiana Jones and the Valley of the Dinosaurs" thinking about that lmao.

And like @OrlandoGuy said, say what you will about Dial, it did give this potential attraction idea a pass to use time travel without worry.

If you do replace Dinosaur with Indiana, just make it fit with the rest of the park, and make it really unique and fun, it's really all I ask of Disney!

 

[belloq87]

Even by the standards of the Indiana Jones movies, living dinosaurs would be a reach.

Now, Indy investigating artifacts somehow connected to dinosaurs? Possible. That's more the arena of paleontology rather than archaeology, but it would be more plausible than actual dinos.

One of the tie-in novels in the 1990s did something with the concept:

 

[IzzyB]

Having gotten an AP recently and gone on Dinosaur for the first time in years, I can't tell you how low my appetite is for a replacement, let alone anything like Zootopia and Indy. Dinosaur is so unique, cool, scary, and pretty unlike modern Iger era Disney in the best ways imo. I was worried that the preshow, which is as burned into my head as Haunted Mansion's honestly, might've aged poorly since the last time I rode, but in a room full of little kids, every one of them was laughing and giggling at the little quips from the scientist. The "Hello There" puppet got a remarkably strong response. And even with some broken effects, the ride was fun, fastpaced, and really throws you into a dangerous original adventure that feels really at home next to Kilimanjaro, Kali, and Everest. Some kids were a little shaken afterwards, but I saw one of them go up to their mom waiting for them outside and say something like "Mom! We saw a really big dinosaur and it chased us and we went and...", just beaming and despite the scariness being so excited and loving what they just got to see, real dinosaurs!

Add the fact that the Institute is so far removed from Dino-Rama and the rest of the park, you could clearly just build something new to replace the parking lot and leave Dinosaur alone. I'm sorry but if they get rid of this ride it's gonna be a serious loss. Dinosaur's are such an incredible concept for theme parks. It's the only reason I wanted to go on Ellen as a kid. They are underutilized and mismanaged as DAK, sure, but is the answer to send them to the Beastly Kingdom trashbin? And to replace it with an attraction you can find at every other Disney resort? What a lame, uncreative, IP-addicted way to "plus" a park. I'm excited to go to Disneyland to see Indy, please don't homogenize your resorts any more than you already have.

But is the Dino ride at max capacity or anywhere close to it? Because it is always a low wait time for me. Back in the FP days I never in a million years would pick this ride to do FP for.

Also, it is a scary ride. Almost every kid I know that has been on it said they would never go back on it. It seems way scarier to kids than most other rides. So while Dinos are popular for the preschool/Lower Elementary crowd most of them think that ride is too scary.

I don’t know Indy as an IP well enough… can dinosaurs be included?

This is not becomming a Disney vs Universal conversation, but giving Universal basically full control of Dino’s in theme parks is plain idiotic. They still sell, and always will. Just one example, but my cousins son just recently saw Jurassic Park for the first time and we’ve all been told for Christmas to get him, direct quote, “literally anytbing dinosaur related.”

I love this ride and can live with a replacement though, but like, depends.

Yes, Dinos are popular amongst boys. It isn't nearly at the level as some other IPs like Pokemon, MCU, DC, power rangers, Sonic, and TMNT. My son knows about 2 boys who Dino was their main thing and one being his cousin. While he 100% is still interested in Dinos he is now 6 and has asked for all Pokemon this year and no Dinos. If you want to know what is popular head over to Target kid clothing section, it will tell you everything you need to know.

Does my son have some Dino toys? Yes, does he play with them? Rarely. It is mostly in, Paw Patrol is saving the town from Dinos. Now that his Paw Patrol days are dying down I imagine before he turns 7 all Dinos will be packed away for donation. So before he would find Dino no longer scary he will be completely out of Dinos.

The reason JP works is it goes beyond the preschool crowd and into the adult crowd. It is an IP that crosses generations AND they have two rides that kids can go on that won't scare them nearly as much as Dinosaur in AK will.

 

[HandsomePete]

But is the Dino ride at max capacity or anywhere close to it? Because it is always a low wait time for me. Back in the FP days I never in a million years would pick this ride to do FP for.

It is not - it hovers around 10-15 minutes most afternoons/evenings. It doesn't sustain demand in the shoulder periods. Not an apples to apples comparison here, but IJA has consistently longer waits in a park that has a *lot* more rides. Like right now - 1pm in Orlando and Dinosaur is at 35 minutes, 10am at DLR and IJA is at 50.

Also, it is a scary ride. Almost every kid I know that has been on it said they would never go back on it. It seems way scarier to kids than most other rides. So while Dinos are popular for the preschool/Lower Elementary crowd most of them think that ride is too scary.

It does not rate particularly well on surveys. A lot of people don't think about the mechanics of how attraction surveys work, but "the demon-looking dinosaur scared my kid" is a legitimate drag on scores because surveys are usually filled out by one adult through the lens of their recollection of their whole party's experience, not what he/she individually thought of it.

In a analytical sense, the notion of "kids love dinosaurs..." gets overruled by feelings of "... but that *one* dinosaur can get out of here." I suspect JPRA is slightly insulated from this by overtly advertising to passerbys that there's a scary drop at the end.

 

[IzzyB]

It is not - it hovers around 10-15 minutes most afternoons/evenings. It doesn't sustain demand in the shoulder periods. Not an apples to apples comparison here, but IJA has consistently longer waits in a park that has a *lot* more rides. Like right now - 1pm in Orlando and Dinosaur is at 35 minutes, 10am at DLR and IJA is at 50.


It does not rate particularly well on surveys. A lot of people don't think about the mechanics of how attraction surveys work, but "the demon-looking dinosaur scared my kid" is a legitimate drag on scores because surveys are usually filled out by one adult through the lens of their recollection of their whole party's experience, not what he/she individually thought of it.

In a analytical sense, the notion of "kids love dinosaurs..." gets overruled by feelings of "... but that *one* dinosaur can get out of here." I suspect JPRA is slightly insulated from this by overtly advertising to passerbys that there's a scary drop at the end.

I also don't think JPRA is as scary. My daughter when she was 5 or 6 did JPRA, she didn't like it but not because it was scary, it was a water ride and she just doesn't care for those. But she absolutely would go on it again if we all went. Because it didn't scare her a ton.

She did Dinosaur at Disney and absolutely refused to go on it ever again. She was scared. Only other ride that scared her that much was tower of terror. But of the two, tower of terror she has done again, she will not go on dinosaurs. It left that much of an impression on her. Last time we were at Disney she was probably 10.

I have a friend who's daughter was the same way. She rides everything and just will never go on Dinosaur again.

So I don't get this outrage over getting rid of a ride that is clearly not popular and gets bad reviews on surveys. It is a great business decision in my opinion. I understand nostalgia when it makes sense, but it doesn't here. This isn't like ET where a huge amount of the GP would also be upset.

 

[Alicia]

They can get rid of Dinosaur, I just don’t think Indiana Jones is the best option.

 

[GA-MBIT]

I'll admit that some of my energy towards the situation is fueled from nostalgia and personal attachment to the attraction, it was a ride I really loved when I was younger. However, I do think there are still a lot of thoughts and opinions I have that make me so opposed to it's removal that are legitimate and stand on their own merits outside of pure nostalgia.


1. I believe Dinosaurs deserve a notable spot within DAK.

2. I don't believe everything in a theme park requires min-maxxing to become the most profitable, well-attended version of itself. We'd lose a lot of great, fun, and even historic attractions if this idea fully takes hold.

3. I don't believe every ride should require an IP grafted on. Dinosaur has one thrown onto it already, but the IP is so niche and the makeover so invisible no one even notices. There is a massive difference between that and Zootopia/Indy taking over.

4. I think the ride is very fun and well-made. It's unique among any other Dinosaur-themed attraction on Earth, besides maybe Jurassic World Adventure which I only know the one big chase scene. (I personally try to avoid spoilers for rides.) Going through an actual prehistoric jungle and speeding away from chasing Dinosaur's in a car is a really cool ride concept that you can't get on JPRA or Velocicoaster.

5. I don't believe the Disney Parks should have to lean away from edge and scariness. Some of the best attractions in WDW history have leaned into that to great effect, (ToT, Everest, Splash Mountain). Despite that, since Everest the Disney Parks have leaned 100% into whimsy. There's only been one relatively thrilling or scary experience at WDW since the 2000s and that's RotR, which is one of the best rides in the resort. Splash seems to be removing the scary drop for a more celebratory fun "Dig a Little Deeper" scene, which is fine in it's own right, but it's simply less interesting to me. I think scrubbing the tension and scariness of Dinosaur and turning it into Indiana Jones' whimsical danger, the same as GotG:CR or FoP has just makes everything more one note and less interesting imo. And a Zootopia ride would be leagues worse for that. If they plan on making more whimsical rides going forward, I would love to just keep as much of the 90s/2000s edge as possible.

6. I think in a park that has a net 7 or so rides, Disney shouldn't be worrying about replacing things as much as expanding and building onto the resort they've already got.

7. If they want to replace Dino-Rama, the Institute is tucked away enough from it that a Dino-Land replacement could skirt around the building a la E.T. for DreamworksZone without much issue.

8. I very much am opposed to Disney Parks on the whole becoming more homogenized. I want to have a reason to go to Disneyland, Hong Kong, Paris, Shanghai. I think on the whole, I'd rather have a less good but unique attraction than a great clone.

It won't make the most business sense to keep Dinosaur around by any means, but when have fans ever needed to worry about the bottom line for the Disney CEO's to care about a ride they really enjoy? Like I said before, that's the kinda thinking that'll get us Doctor Strange's Hollywood Tower of Agamotto in DHS or whatever. Dinosaur is a really interesting original attraction that really is unlike most things Disney has ever made, and it'd be a real shame to me to see it torn to shreds forever, in order to install something you could buy a ticket and ride at Anaheim or Shanghai already.

 

[belloq87]

I'll admit that some of my energy towards the situation is fueled from nostalgia and personal attachment to the attraction, it was a ride I really loved when I was younger. However, I do think there are still a lot of thoughts and opinions I have that make me so opposed to it's removal that are legitimate and stand on their own merits outside of pure nostalgia.


1. I believe Dinosaurs deserve a notable spot within DAK.

2. I don't believe everything in a theme park requires min-maxxing to become the most profitable, well-attended version of itself. We'd lose a lot of great, fun, and even historic attractions if this idea fully takes hold.

3. I don't believe every ride should require an IP grafted on. Dinosaur has one thrown onto it already, but the IP is so niche and the makeover so invisible no one even notices. There is a massive difference between that and Zootopia/Indy taking over.

4. I think the ride is very fun and well-made. It's unique among any other Dinosaur-themed attraction on Earth, besides maybe Jurassic World Adventure which I only know the one big chase scene. (I personally try to avoid spoilers for rides.) Going through an actual prehistoric jungle and speeding away from chasing Dinosaur's in a car is a really cool ride concept that you can't get on JPRA or Velocicoaster.

5. I don't believe the Disney Parks should have to lean away from edge and scariness. Some of the best attractions in WDW history have leaned into that to great effect, (ToT, Everest, Splash Mountain). Despite that, since Everest the Disney Parks have leaned 100% into whimsy. There's only been one relatively thrilling or scary experience at WDW since the 2000s and that's RotR, which is one of the best rides in the resort. Splash seems to be removing the scary drop for a more celebratory fun "Dig a Little Deeper" scene, which is fine in it's own right, but it's simply less interesting to me. I think scrubbing the tension and scariness of Dinosaur and turning it into Indiana Jones' whimsical danger, the same as GotG:CR or FoP has just makes everything more one note and less interesting imo. And a Zootopia ride would be leagues worse for that. If they plan on making more whimsical rides going forward, I would love to just keep as much of the 90s/2000s edge as possible.

6. I think in a park that has a net 7 or so rides, Disney shouldn't be worrying about replacing things as much as expanding and building onto the resort they've already got.

7. If they want to replace Dino-Rama, the Institute is tucked away enough from it that a Dino-Land replacement could skirt around the building a la E.T. for DreamworksZone without much issue.

8. I very much am opposed to Disney Parks on the whole becoming more homogenized. I want to have a reason to go to Disneyland, Hong Kong, Paris, Shanghai. I think on the whole, I'd rather have a less good but unique attraction than a great clone.

It won't make the most business sense to keep Dinosaur around by any means, but when have fans ever needed to worry about the bottom line for the Disney CEO's to care about a ride they really enjoy? Like I said before, that's the kinda thinking that'll get us Doctor Strange's Hollywood Tower of Agamotto in DHS or whatever. Dinosaur is a really interesting original attraction that really is unlike most things Disney has ever made, and it'd be a real shame to me to see it torn to shreds forever, in order to install something you could buy a ticket and ride at Anaheim or Shanghai already.

 

[grlhowl]

I believe Dinosaurs deserve a notable spot within DAK.

They absolutely do. It's such a shame to me but I think this park is really in danger of losing it's core ideas to IPs. I don't mind the proper integration of Pandora, I think it works very well- but I don't see that in the proposed IPs for this space.

In all fairness, Dinoland's execution isn't the best, but it might have the most fascinating core value in the park: our cultural connection to the past and extinct animals. It focuses on the academic side, the pop culture side, the fascination we feel as a culture with these animals we'll never see or know. I find that SO neat, but I know it flies over most guests' heads. I didn't even realize it until I read ParkLore's phenomenal write-ups on the land and it's place in the park. This is why I remain fascinated with Beastly Kingdom almost a decade after I learned of it- the possibilities are endless for a land which explores our connections to myths and magical fictional animals!

I guess the reason this entire development has soured over the last few months is because I think it marks the end of much care or thought into maintaining this park's core values, which Rhode protected so well. Similarly, it makes me so sad to see how this will also mark the end of each park serving any unique role to each other. Just dump IPs wherever they vaguely fit and leave each park messy and without a future plan? Is that it now? I'm sorry if I seem strangely passionate about this. Many will say this happened to Epcot long ago, and they're right, but I think DAK's fate might upset me so much because it isn't doomed YET. I think it could very well happen with this expansion, and that really bums me out.

 

[Mad Dog]

Whatever happens, Disney really needs to do something, starting soon, to buoy up AK. Pandora, though it still has long ride lines, no longer spurs overall attendance for AK. AK is quickly falling 'significantly' behind the other three WDW parks in attendance. It's a good park for an initial visit, but weak for repeat visits. It critically needs some new, and additional, 'rides'.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

They absolutely do. It's such a shame to me but I think this park is really in danger of losing it's core ideas to IPs. I don't mind the proper integration of Pandora, I think it works very well- but I don't see that in the proposed IPs for this space.

In all fairness, Dinoland's execution isn't the best, but it might have the most fascinating core value in the park: our cultural connection to the past and extinct animals. It focuses on the academic side, the pop culture side, the fascination we feel as a culture with these animals we'll never see or know. I find that SO neat, but I know it flies over most guests' heads. I didn't even realize it until I read ParkLore's phenomenal write-ups on the land and it's place in the park. This is why I remain fascinated with Beastly Kingdom almost a decade after I learned of it- the possibilities are endless for a land which explores our connections to myths and magical fictional animals!

I guess the reason this entire development has soured over the last few months is because I think it marks the end of much care or thought into maintaining this park's core values, which Rhode protected so well. Similarly, it makes me so sad to see how this will also mark the end of each park serving any unique role to each other. Just dump IPs wherever they vaguely fit and leave each park messy and without a future plan? Is that it now? I'm sorry if I seem strangely passionate about this. Many will say this happened to Epcot long ago, and they're right, but I think DAK's fate might upset me so much because it isn't doomed YET. I think it could very well happen with this expansion, and that really bums me out.

Question to those who quote double digit attendance boosts for Potter, disappointing attendance for Galaxy’s Edge, etc. … what was the bump that Animal Kingdom gained from Everest?

Because to the post above, I don’t disagree that that’s where the park is headed…but I wonder if original and thematically-correct rides are what people actually want.

 

[TheGentTrent]

If y'all had any sense, you would have made the 2000 Dinosaur movie a huge hit and then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Nick]

Whatever happens, Disney really needs to do something, starting soon, to buoy up AK. Pandora, though it still has long ride lines, no longer spurs overall attendance for AK. AK is quickly falling 'significantly' behind the other three WDW parks in attendance. It's a good park for an initial visit, but weak for repeat visits. It critically needs some new, and additional, 'rides'.

It has long lines because there’s so few rides in the park though. If another E-ticket was added for example and/or the park was expanded, then ride times will start to even out.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

My favorite park in the world is DAK... but even I can't find enough to do there for more than 2 hours a day. It has a solid lineup regarding attraction quality... even though you can count all of them using one hand. Lion King and Nemo are the two best daytime stage shows on the property (and Orlando), but even that can't help keep you late.

Pandora is great at night, but there's just not enough to keep people there throughout the day. Most people rope drop the park thanks to theme park fan tips, and can pretty much easily knock out the park by lunch resulting in lots of tired people leaving earlier in the day.

Flight of Passage and Na'vi receive ridiculous waits because they're the only 2 non-Safari attractions that most of the family can experience together (no significant motion, thrills, or water). Also, FoP's theaters go down for maintenance one by one so there's a good chance they are only running 3 of them, reducing capacity further.

Love DAK, but it will be the easiest park to drop from most families' vacations since it doesn't have a "big IP" attached to it (I almost vomited saying that) from a marketing perspective.

I don't mind IP implementation at the parks since that's the only way we're getting new stuff, unfortunately.

Love Dinosaur, but it's showing its age and is not as popular anymore. I just hope they work on this project in phases to prevent capacity from plummeting (or add new temporary shows).

 

[grlhowl]

Because to the post above, I don’t disagree that that’s where the park is headed…but I wonder if original and thematically-correct rides are what people actually want.

I've come to terms with the fact that our chances of ever seeing an original, non-IP Disney ride ever again are slim, and I hardly expect that to happen at DAK. And as mentioned, I think Pandora is actually very well integrated into this park's themes and touches on some unique concepts. I'm happy we could be seeing a land that isn't entirely based on one IP, but I simply think you have to stretch to connect these IPs to DAK. Encanto has a minor character whose power is based around animals, and I think attempting to alter the IJA premise to focus on animals would feel pretty weak and flimsy as well.

Fitting these themes and values into this park through thoughtful, quality rides is what can make it feel complete. And while many guests will never grasp much of these themes, I think it's something that can be felt through the guest experience. Imagine how strange the urban setting of Zootopia would've felt next to the rest of this park's settings! Encanto and Indy will be a draw for sure, but if they're haphazardly put in this park with little connection to the wider themes, I think there's a good chance they will feel out of place.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

I've come to terms with the fact that our chances of ever seeing an original, non-IP Disney ride ever again are slim, and I hardly expect that to happen at DAK. And as mentioned, I think Pandora is actually very well integrated into this park's themes and touches on some unique concepts. I'm happy we could be seeing a land that isn't entirely based on one IP, but I simply think you have to stretch to connect these IPs to DAK. Encanto has a minor character whose power is based around animals, and I think attempting to alter the IJA premise to focus on animals would feel pretty weak and flimsy as well.

Fitting these themes and values into this park through thoughtful, quality rides is what can make it feel complete. And while many guests will never grasp much of these themes, I think it's something that can be felt through the guest experience. Imagine how strange the urban setting of Zootopia would've felt next to the rest of this park's settings! Encanto and Indy will be a draw for sure, but if they're haphazardly put in this park with little connection to the wider themes, I think there's a good chance they will feel out of place.

I have a feeling WDW management sees DAK as the "adventure" park that just so happens to feature animals and anything goes.

I love Indiana Jones, so I'll take anything anywhere, but I'm very interested in seeing how Disney PR connects it to DAK's central theme.

 

[IzzyB]

5. I don't believe the Disney Parks should have to lean away from edge and scariness. Some of the best attractions in WDW history have leaned into that to great effect, (ToT, Everest, Splash Mountain). Despite that, since Everest the Disney Parks have leaned 100% into whimsy. There's only been one relatively thrilling or scary experience at WDW since the 2000s and that's RotR, which is one of the best rides in the resort. Splash seems to be removing the scary drop for a more celebratory fun "Dig a Little Deeper" scene, which is fine in it's own right, but it's simply less interesting to me. I think scrubbing the tension and scariness of Dinosaur and turning it into Indiana Jones' whimsical danger, the same as GotG:CR or FoP has just makes everything more one note and less interesting imo. And a Zootopia ride would be leagues worse for that. If they plan on making more whimsical rides going forward, I would love to just keep as much of the 90s/2000s edge as possible.

I don't have an issue with Scary. My issue with Dinosaur is the arguments many are making is that Dinosaurs are wildly popular and they are. But they are popular with an age group that thinks this ride is too scary. So that is the problem with this ride. No IP, too scary for the age range that likes the content, and tucked away. Meaning it just isn't popular enough to justify keeping it in favor of a more popular ride that will attract people to the park.

Also, that area will not be Zootopia. Zootopia will go into the tree of life, which I think is an OK idea other than no clue how they will manage to do that. Another thing, while I get wanting Dinosaurs in the park, it doesn't allow for real animals. This will allow for real animals to be added to this part of the park which can also help with attraction lines and add to your time spent here.

Whatever happens, Disney really needs to do something, starting soon, to buoy up AK. Pandora, though it still has long ride lines, no longer spurs overall attendance for AK. AK is quickly falling 'significantly' behind the other three WDW parks in attendance. It's a good park for an initial visit, but weak for repeat visits. It critically needs some new, and additional, 'rides'.

Agreed and I 100% believe they need to expand the park, but if the first step is quickly get more people into the park and the way to do that is this, I am good with it.

Question to those who quote double digit attendance boosts for Potter, disappointing attendance for Galaxy’s Edge, etc. … what was the bump that Animal Kingdom gained from Everest?

Because to the post above, I don’t disagree that that’s where the park is headed…but I wonder if original and thematically-correct rides are what people actually want.

My understanding is Everest didn't boost attendance and is the reason that Disney really stopped building a lot of new rides as they didn't see a need if it wouldn't help.

Love DAK, but it will be the easiest park to drop from most families' vacations since it doesn't have a "big IP" attached to it (I almost vomited saying that) from a marketing perspective.

I don't mind IP implementation at the parks since that's the only way we're getting new stuff, unfortunately.

Agreed, people skip AK a lot. I have friends who say "It is just a zoo" and come for a week and never step foot into AK. They need more and honestly the general person wants IPs. I know as a purist that is hard, but purists are a small % of the people who go to Disney.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

My understanding is Everest didn't boost attendance and is the reason that Disney really stopped building a lot of new rides as they didn't see a need if it wouldn't help.

Agreed, people skip AK a lot. I have friends who say "It is just a zoo" and come for a week and never step foot into AK. They need more and honestly the general person wants IPs. I know as a purist that is hard, but purists are a small % of the people who go to Disney.

According to TEA attendance, DAK attendance went up 6.5% between 2006 and 2007, which is higher than WDW's typical 1-2% annual attendance increase before COVID. I also think the reason we saw WDW stall a bit was that they went big in 2005-06, then had the 2008 recession and by the time we got out of it Universal shook the theme park world with Potter in 2010, which made Disney pivot all of their projects to focus on IP. Pandora saw a 15% attendance jump, so I think it's easy to tell which direction WDW is focused on unfortunately.

People love great original attractions, but unfortunately, they have a hard time drawing people into the park and increasing per-capita spending.

 

[IzzyB]

According to TEA attendance, DAK attendance went up 6.5% between 2006 and 2007, which is higher than WDW's typical 1-2% annual attendance increase before COVID. I also think the reason we saw WDW stall a bit was that they went big in 2005-06, then had the 2008 recession and by the time we got out of it Universal shook the theme park world with Potter in 2010, which made Disney pivot all of their projects to focus on IP. Pandora saw a 15% attendance jump, so I think it's easy to tell which direction WDW is focused on unfortunately.

People love great original attractions, but unfortunately, they have a hard time drawing people into the park and increasing per-capita spending.

6.5% is much different than 15%, also I would be curious to see long term stats to see how long that 6.5% stuck around vs the 15%. It is clear IPs bring in more attendance. And I mean Pandora isn't the best IP.

I don't understand the hate against Disney about IPs when all parks do if they can. When is the last original Uni ride? SW does Rudolph for Christmas to draw more people in. These are businesses.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

6.5% is much different than 15%, also I would be curious to see long term stats to see how long that 6.5% stuck around vs the 15%. It is clear IPs bring in more attendance. And I mean Pandora isn't the best IP.

I don't understand the hate against Disney about IPs when all parks do if they can. When is the last original Uni ride? SW does Rudolph for Christmas to draw more people in. These are businesses.

Not great actually, the following two years attendance rose only by 0.5%. TEA isn't the best source... but the parks do provide context to ensure they're somewhat accurate since investors can get frightened if they report a decline in attendance.

I think theme park fans despise IPs mainly as their implementation can be forced and create horrendous outcomes (Tiki Room w/ Stitch, Fast and Furious), yet ignore some of the great work done with them (Cars Land, Hogsmeade taking over parts of LC).

Edit: Everest was also a thrill ride, so it did nothing for families that couldn't find enough to do at DAK.

Spoiler: YoY Attendance Change %