View Poll Results: Is WDW to big for it's own good?

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 15.79%
  • No

    36 63.16%
  • Sort Of

    11 19.30%
  • Other (please specify)

    1 1.75%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31

    • Disney Memory Maker
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Kissimmee, Florida, United States
    Posts
    8,671
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyKyle
    I don't think that WDW could ever be big enough. I really enjoy spending my vacations there, and I think that the bigger it gets, the better it will be!
    Well said.
    Quote Originally Posted by mickhyperion
    WDW is an ideal size and we're lucky to have it!
    Exactly
    Quote Originally Posted by Pizzapants
    I don't think at all that it is too big. That's why it's called Walt Disney WORLD.
    Absolutely

    -Michael
    “You can design and create, and build the most wonderful place in the world. But it takes people to make the dream a reality.” - Walt Disney

  2. #32

    • Inappropriate
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Gostone
    PizzaPants: "But it seems management is too small."


    Do you small minded? or short sighted? I'd agree with that but I disagree that there are too few chiefs at Disney. Seems there are too little creative people in high places to me.

    -Gostone
    Okay i wasn't very clear on that...i didn't mena like management itsself is too small, but the effort is too small. Pretty much like what you said. My bad.

    Click the banner! ^^^^
    Follow us on Twitter
    @mickeymutineers and on Facebook
    Mickey Mutineer Podcast now available in the blog and on iTunes!

  3. #33

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Pizzapants
    You know what's ironic? You're right about Animal Kingdom being too small and not enough to do, hence the reason it closes early. Yet at the same time, Animal Kingdom is the largest park property size-wise. It makes me laugh maniacally!

    Anyway, though i don't think they shuold not have built Animal Kingdom (for it is a great park) i strongly agree that they need to build up/fix up the other three. It still bugs me that at the studios, the two most popular ride are side by side and the crowd just lingers there all day, while the main attraction in the middle of the park gets blocked by a giant sorcerer's hat and is left to slowly die. (Though i really do think the hat looks cool, it would just be better somewhere else in the park.)

    And juts oout of question, what would you propose as another anchor? Your idea here intrigued me.
    well taking care of all those animals means they've got to use ALOT of space

    and of course that means ALOT of money (I almost wonder why they did it but they did and then to not sell the animals as part of the exerience with the exception of the jeep ride :confused: maybe they SHOULD drop the whole Natasu thing or whatever it's called)

    developing another anchor for WDW is a big question and it's not one I think I'm ready to answer just yet

    it seems that everything about a WDW vacation is setup to revolve around the Magic Kingdom and really I don't think that's right if they want to continue growing

    debatably Epcot used to be a second anchor I mean the Future Sphere was iconic enough and recognizable a decade ago but now it's not really what it used to be and Epcot is a mix of really dated attractions (with obvious corprate tie ins) and new thrill rides

    the pravillions also seem to be in a bit of a mishmesh

    honestly wouldn't Innoventions do better tieing in with Test Track (under the theme of a tech show were companies are showing off the latest prototypes?)

    Epcot might be the closest hope WDW has for creating a second anchor (because I'm not about to advocate building yet ANOTHER park)

    perhaps they should consider selling it as more of an obvious two day park (via adding a second entrance in the world showcase area)

    they could also go about making the countries more interesting to other people by creating a couple more rides based on myths and tales from each of the country's it's supposed to represent

    overall parks like MGM and AK need to stop laying back on one or two flagship rides

    this is bad because if the flagship rides go down or need a refurb then what can they send the guests to? there isn't anything else

  4. #34

    • Inappropriate
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,422
    I agree with your last statement, especially with MGM's 2 biggets rides side by side (i know they did this for technical reasons) i just think they need something else on the opposite end of the park to suck crowds in that direction.
    BUt i have a question about World SHowcase. Is each country sponsored by the actually country that it reperesents? Who has power over what goes in each country? This has always baffled me.

    Click the banner! ^^^^
    Follow us on Twitter
    @mickeymutineers and on Facebook
    Mickey Mutineer Podcast now available in the blog and on iTunes!

  5. #35

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,035
    How about Disney just went back to delivering Disney quality? You know ... EXCEEDING guests expectations. NO new parks, resorts etc ... Instead an intensive rehab schedule, added entertainment and new quality attractions and additions to the existing parks.

  6. #36

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,035
    <<BUt i have a question about World SHowcase. Is each country sponsored by the actually country that it reperesents? Who has power over what goes in each country? This has always baffled me.>>

    I believe that is how it was originally, but now Disney runs a few of the pavillions themselves (I think they run Norway, UK and Canada). Ultimately, Disney decides what goes in as it is their park, but when the country or companies from that country are paying big bucks, they certainly have a lot of input.

  7. #37

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,884
    Quote Originally Posted by WDW1974
    I agree. It would be great if Disney stopped its absurd notion that every theme park it builds has to be a destination resort. How about NO third gates in Paris, Tokyo and Anaheim?
    I don't know about that

    I don't think any of the resorts will ever compete with WDW in sheer bulk

    in reality growth in the other parks is bound to be more interesting

    "pressuer makes diomands" so in DLR anaheim they're squeezed in with such small amounts of land that they have to make every moment and every inch of ground count, this is why we'll probably see more attractions squeezed together as well as the attractions constantly being reinovated in order to meet up with modern standards. Something tells me that even with a third gate the Anaheim resort will be forced to keep up with this policy

    "irriation makes perls" in japan TDL has to put up with higher standards or they will loose the respect of their visitors so here we find a similar style of doing things TDL does alot of entertianment things and it seems to make effective use of their resources, they know how to build parks of equal value to the main gate which is a very good thing to do so you don't have too much built up around one single location (problem with the MK in WDW) they're also a bit limited for land I think but they don't seem as limited as Anahiem is (I could be mistaken) one interesting thing I see is that while TDL has the holiday layovers they seem to have the least reinnovation because both their fantasyland and tomorrowland remain the same

    I'm not sure about Paris, I think they have quite a bit of land here (moreso then Anihiem and TDL at least?) they're not quiet WDW big of course, here your probabily right there is soooo much work and so many design flaws that I'm not sure were to begin, Paris just doesn't have the cash to be a big resort yet though that's obviously what they're angling for, I need to see/hear more on Paris before I do a total judgement though


    you could argue that because WDW doesn't have as much to overcome in limitations that it has indeed grown weaker in the face of it's great great strength

    also because it seems so far out on it's own I'm wondering if they have the ability to be as picky about who they hire (as opposed to Anihiem were Disneyland is in a very dense urban center with plenty of teenaged workers to discriminate against and weed out the best of the best from)

    Disney seems to also have a finacial limit on how much they're willing to spend on WDW so while Disney could essentialy go crazy and throw tons of cash into keeping everything up I'm not sure they're quite that dedicated, maybe they should bring things up to a point were they CAN keep things up (hence my recommended reinovation, reinovation means you don't just make things look better for the tourists but you can use newer technologys to make upkeep cheaper and easier for yourself as well)

    in WDW they don't have to tighten up every bolt because there's so much they figure who'll notice a couple of loose bolts

    this is also why WDW's fans are going to be less discriminating, WDW has an infinate possibility for more (will not quite but it gives the illusion of such) in WDW you can truly go by the idea of "if you don't like it don't do it" because they figure if Disney builds something margional who cares because they've still got space for MORE.

    People wonder why parks like DCA have soooo much against them it's simple, in anihiem Disney has such little land that to make a park so margional is like they've wasted it and that agrivates people because they know that there won't always be "more"

    in WDW if they build even a margional park people just shrug it off and go "boy I can't wait for the 6th-9th gate to be built

    this is also one of the reasons why I tell Disneyland fans that they'd better get used to WDW getting attractions first and then having the best of the best cloned to the other parks, WDW just has a better stomach for the margional because if it's not that great they'll get a smalll ridership and nobody will care (as opposed to a "new" idea actualy tanking completly in another park)

    "less is bad too much is never enough"

  8. #38

    • Uber Disney freak! ºOº
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    398
    Interesting topic here... is WDW too big? I chose "sort of" - but would change that to No IF Disney would fix up what they have, and get the parks back to the level they should be at.

    As is, on Wednesday I'll be one of the folks parkhopping in a BIG way this week, at least on Wednesday. Lunch at the Studios after picking up a ToT FP (maybe also squeeze in the new stunt show if I can before I leave the park), then off to DAK to see if I can catch Lucky. Then Epcot to catch a performance over at America Gardens Theatre and hit SSE on the way out... then dsinner at the Cali Grill and EMH at the MK.

    Given, this is a self-imposed sort of thing for me, NOT because I'd get bored in one park if I spent all day there (well, except for the Studios, which is just PITIFUL overall), so hopefully WDW1974 won't think less of me for it.
    -Ann

    WDW:
    July 1987 - offsite, 1-day visit to the MK; July-August 2000 - honeymoon - Port Orleans (now POFQ); May 2003 - Caribbean Beach Resort; Dec 2003 - Coronado Springs; April 2004 - Pop Century (PC) & POFQ; Sept 2004 - Animal Kingdom Lodge; May 2005 - Port Orleans Riverside; Sept 2005 - PC; Oct 2006 - POFQ; Apr 2007 - PC; July 2007 - Boardwalk Villas (WOO HOO! I was at WDW in the MK on the 20th anniversary of my first visit!); August - Sept 2007 - Old Key West; Sept 2007 - Saratoga Springs; Oct 2007 - BWV; Mar-Apr 2008 - SS

    DLR:
    Dec 2001 - Grand Californian; Jan 2005 - GC; July 2005 - HoJo Anaheim & GC; Dec 2008 - Best Western Park Place Inn



    p.s. Wanna buy a ?

  9. #39

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Labuda
    Interesting topic here... is WDW too big? I chose "sort of" - but would change that to No IF Disney would fix up what they have, and get the parks back to the level they should be at.

    As is, on Wednesday I'll be one of the folks parkhopping in a BIG way this week, at least on Wednesday. Lunch at the Studios after picking up a ToT FP (maybe also squeeze in the new stunt show if I can before I leave the park), then off to DAK to see if I can catch Lucky. Then Epcot to catch a performance over at America Gardens Theatre and hit SSE on the way out... then dsinner at the Cali Grill and EMH at the MK.

    Given, this is a self-imposed sort of thing for me, NOT because I'd get bored in one park if I spent all day there (well, except for the Studios, which is just PITIFUL overall), so hopefully WDW1974 won't think less of me for it.
    Never! But you sure have a lot planned for one day. The highlights will surely be California Grill and EMH at MK. ... Also, don't even waste your time walking over to the Stunt Show. With the grand media premiere that evening, you can be sure there will be no performances for the public.

    Have a great trip!

  10. #40

    • Sock Puppet
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4

    WDW Too Big?

    Yeah, I think so. I guess I'm just speculating, though...I've never been......and really, I don't have this tremendous desire to go.......if I go, great, if I don't......I have th ORIGINAL practically in my own backyard.....and that's sentimental......since Walt Disney walked those streets, the lands....and actually was there......so that's the coolest, as far as I am concerned.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •