Future of Animal Kingdom? | Page 3 | Inside Universal Forums
Inside Universal Forums
Inside Universal Forums
  • Home
  • Forums
    New posts Search forums Account Upgrades
  • News
    Universal Studios Hollywood Universal Orlando Universal Studios Japan Universal Studios Singapore Universal Studios Beijing
  • Merchandise
Log in Register
What's new Search

Search

By:
  • New posts
  • Search forums
  • Account Upgrades
Menu
Log in

Register

Install the app
  • 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.
  • Forums
  • Orlando Theme Parks
  • Walt Disney World Resort
  • Disney's Animal Kingdom
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

Future of Animal Kingdom?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheOrlandoGeek8312
  • Start date Start date Dec 28, 2019
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 3 of 4

Go to page

Next Last
Scott W.

Scott W.

Superstar
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
14,275
Location
Glasgow
  • Jan 24, 2020
  • #41
UAN17 said:
I hope they’re not done in DHS or Epcot though. Such is the underinvestment from Disney between 2000 to 2015, what they’ve built / announced for the parks doesn’t go far enough imo.

DHS needs several more rides, and Imagination/Seas/Land need updating, as well as additional draws to World Showcase.

I also think MK is underdeveloped too, especially in comparison to Disneyland.

I hope they don’t take their foot off.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrn14, GA-MBIT, Dhdhddh and 1 other person
mainejeff

mainejeff

Minion
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
883
  • Jan 25, 2020
  • #42
Zootopia taking over Dinoland is a no brainer.
 
Cheezbat

Cheezbat

Jurassic Ranger
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
1,432
Location
Orlando Florida
  • Jan 25, 2020
  • #43
mainejeff said:
Zootopia taking over Dinoland is a no brainer.
Click to expand...
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.
 
mainejeff

mainejeff

Minion
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
883
  • Jan 25, 2020
  • #44
Cheezbat said:
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.
Click to expand...

What does he say about a tacky dinosaur carnival?
 
GA-MBIT

GA-MBIT

Jurassic Ranger
Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2017
Messages
2,104
Location
Isle Delfino
  • Jan 25, 2020
  • #45
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CyborgDinosaur, JoeCamel, belloq87 and 2 others
shiekra38

shiekra38

Superstar
BANNED
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
16,111
Location
Florida
  • Jan 25, 2020
  • #46
Not every successful Disney film needs a land
 
Nick

Nick

Veteran Member
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Messages
31,222
Location
Orlando
  • Jan 26, 2020
  • #47
mainejeff said:
Zootopia taking over Dinoland is a no brainer.
Click to expand...
The worst of takes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jones14 and SkiBum
Andysol

Andysol

Webslinger
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
3,861
Age
41
  • Jan 27, 2020
  • #48
GAcoaster said:
Pandas or koalas are HUGE draws for any zoo. Busch Gardens hosted both pandas and koalas and they got huge bumps in attendance when they did as well as selling tons of merchandise.
Click to expand...
If they were to grab some koalas and other animals that were rescues from the Australian fires, they could leverage their marketing also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GAcoaster
Cup_Of_Coffee

Cup_Of_Coffee

Time Traveler
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,748
Age
27
  • Jan 27, 2020
  • #49
shiekra38 said:
Not every successful Disney film needs a land
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parkscope Joe
Parkscope Joe

Parkscope Joe

Superstar
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
18,095
Age
38
  • Jan 27, 2020
  • #50
shiekra38 said:
Not every successful Disney film needs a land
Click to expand...

And not every movie needs a land. *looks at Pandora*
 
  • Like
Reactions: SkiBum
RFRees

RFRees

Minion
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
954
  • Feb 18, 2020
  • #51
Scott W. said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scott W.

Scott W.

Superstar
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
14,275
Location
Glasgow
  • Feb 18, 2020
  • #52
RFRees said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheDr

TheDr

Shark Bait
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
124
Location
Scotland
  • Feb 18, 2020
  • #53
RFRees said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just because they can, doesn't mean they should
 
RFRees

RFRees

Minion
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
954
  • Feb 18, 2020
  • #54
Scott W. said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.)

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.
Click to expand...
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't compare a coffee shop to a theme park.
Click to expand...
You can compare anything depending on how you are comparing. My example works fine.
The Starbucks in Disney are constantly mobbed, why don't they build another one in the same parks?
Click to expand...
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.
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.
Click to expand...
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.

TheDr said:
Just because they can, doesn't mean they should
Click to expand...
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: Feb 19, 2020
  • Like
Reactions: SkiBum
SkiBum

SkiBum

Jurassic Ranger
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
2,220
Location
Cincinnati, OH
  • Feb 18, 2020
  • #55
RFRees said:
I think you misunderstood my post. But in fairness to you, I can understand how you (or others) would understand my post to read "Disney needs a fifth park now!"

That's not what I'm saying. My post was designed to refute your idea that "3 is the sweet spot."

Here's your quote: "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. Universal can go to four, Disney can manage their current four or 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 can (if demand were to ever support it).


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.


You can compare anything depending on how you are comparing them. My example works fine.

If coffee demand increases, Disney could 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. So I don't get your point at all here... and it certainly does not validate your point of "3 is the sweet spot."


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. That's really all I'm trying to say.
Click to expand...

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.
 
J

Jones14

Shark Bait
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
431
  • Feb 21, 2020
  • #56
Joe said:
And not every movie needs a land. *looks at Pandora*
Click to expand...
Pandora is far better as a theme park land than it will ever be as a movie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HHN Yeti Lover and UNIrd
shiekra38

shiekra38

Superstar
BANNED
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
16,111
Location
Florida
  • Feb 22, 2020
  • #57
Jones14 said:
Pandora is far better as a theme park land than it will ever be as a movie.
Click to expand...
I would have to agree with this...It's absolutely stunning
 
  • Like
Reactions: HHN Yeti Lover
UK-Trigg

UK-Trigg

Webslinger
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
3,277
Location
UK
  • Feb 22, 2020
  • #58
shiekra38 said:
I would have to agree with this...It's absolutely stunning
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Disneyhead and Mad Dog
Mad Dog

Mad Dog

Veteran Member
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
23,762
Location
Pittsburgh area
  • Feb 22, 2020
  • #59
UK-Trigg said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Disneyhead
shiekra38

shiekra38

Superstar
BANNED
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
16,111
Location
Florida
  • Feb 22, 2020
  • #60
UK-Trigg said:
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.
Click to expand...
Joke's on you, Batuu is a junkyard desert planet, so it's totally in theme
 
  • Like
Reactions: HHN Yeti Lover
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 3 of 4

Go to page

Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.
Share:
Facebook X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email Share Link

Book with our Travel Partners

MEI Travel

Latest posts

  • Legacy
    Live Theatre / Musicals
    • Latest: Legacy
    • 7 minutes ago
    Games, Movies & Sports
  • C
    Halloween Horror Nights 34 (UOR) - Speculation & Rumors
    • Latest: Casper Gutman
    • Today at 2:56 AM
    Halloween Horror Nights 34
  • Viator
    State of USH - What's Next?
    • Latest: Viator
    • Today at 12:23 AM
    Miscellaneous Universal Studios Hollywood
  • Wesker69
    Transformers: The Ride - 3D
    • Latest: Wesker69
    • Today at 12:11 AM
    Lower Lot/Studio Center
  • S
    Harry Potter & The Battle at the Ministry - Reviews, Photos & Media
    • Latest: simon
    • Today at 12:07 AM
    Epic Universe Reviews

Share this page

Facebook X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email Share Link
  • Forums
  • Orlando Theme Parks
  • Walt Disney World Resort
  • Disney's Animal Kingdom
  • Style variation
    System Light Dark
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
  • RSS
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2025 XenForo Ltd.
  • This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn more…
Back
Top