[MerlinMatt]

Ok.

This topic has come up many times, so I'm posting a poll just to get an objective count of what everyone thinks.

Here's my perspective. While a Coaster/Thrill park would be fun and may even compete more head to head with IOA and the like, I honestly believe that it would, it the long run, cut into Disney's differentiation.

Disney more-or-less DEFINED the theme park concept. I know there were other parks before Disney, but the growth of the industry in the 70s, 80s & 90s was very clearly a direct result of Disney.

I think Disney being a "me too" company would be bad.

[rlander]

I think that sprinkling each of the four parks with thrill rides is the best option. That is the course Disney has been on. Each park has a couple thrill rides and with the opening of Mt. Everest at AK, it will have a first class thrill ride of it's own.

Disney knows how to make a true themed thrill ride. Any park can make a super fast and super thrilling ride, but without a purpose or theme, it can not compare to what Disney offers. That's what seperates Disney from the rest and keeps them the premier theme park. With the opening of Mt. Everest, Disney will once again raise the bar in thrill ride entertainment.

[bwm8184]

I agree. I think that having thrill rides scattered throughout all four of the parks is the best way for disney to do it. I feel that disney doesnt need one entire park for just thrill rides, thats not why we go to disney, we go to have a good time and to enjoy the disney atmosphere. I love thrill rides but some of the best thrill rides Ive been on are ToT and RRC. I definately wont complain if they add more thrill rides but i definately wont complain if they dont.

[tigger]

Other parks pound out the thrill rides and I say let them. Disney creates experiences and they are all thrilling in there own way or another.

[Cavey]

I think my post on another thread brought this up. I'm not married to the idea or anything, but I think there's room for another WDW park that is geared towards "thrills." I'm talking nothing but roller coasters and make-you-throw-up thrill rides. No fancy dining. No character meet 'n greets. No shows. In other words, market it towards teens who think WDW is for little kids.

A theme park geared towards teens would allow mom, dad, & junior to enjoy the other "magical" parks while teenagers--tired of ISWA and Ellen's Energy Adventure--puke to their hearts content at "Vomit Kingdom" (Probably the name would have to be changed.)

The advantages are:
1. It would pull teens and "thrill seekers" out of MK, cutting down lines.
2. Overall, it would draw in more families with teenagers to WDW (making $$ for WDW)
3. It would compete head-to-head with Universal's "thrill" rides.

[dizneeluvr]

I voted that they do need to do a thrill park. This doesn't have to consist of only roller coasters, they need to incorporate the 3-D rides similar to Spiderman and the Mummy (haven't been there since that opened though so don't really know what it's like).

I have a 13 year old daughter who is a thrill ride junkie and she loves Disney but when we asked about vacation to Cedar Point or Disney, she decided Cedar Point. We have thought for the last couple of years that Disney needs to add another park devoted solely for thrill rides and the like.

Disney is obviously like any other corporation in America, they are wanting the all mighty dollar. Wouldn't it be in their best interest to build a park like Universal and keep the money that vacationers spend at Universal in their own world?

[rlander]

LOL!!! I respectfully disagree Jeff. We have a "Vomit Kingdom" in my backyard called Paramounts Kings Island. It is a fun place, and I love going there, but it lacks imagination. What you described sounds like a county fair. Again, no imagination.

PS....I love your signature. Probably the most original I have ever read.

[Erin]

I voted No. I think Disney does is what Disney does best. I like their version of a thrill ride, and if I want anything different I can go to Universal.

[tinkerbell]

No was my vote .. besides .. I have a different definition of what is a thrill ride. to me,
COP is a thrill ride. POC is also a thrill ride :) just call me corny but, the real thrill comes from the heart :)

[rlander]

Originally Posted by tinkerbell

POC is also a thrill ride :)

That first hill gets me every time too!!! It's all in the special fx.

[tinkerbell]

Originally Posted by caver_jeffery

I think my post on another thread brought this up. I'm not married to the idea or anything, but I think there's room for another WDW park that is geared towards "thrills." I'm talking nothing but roller coasters and make-you-throw-up thrill rides. No fancy dining. No character meet 'n greets. No shows. In other words, market it towards teens who think WDW is for little kids.

A theme park geared towards teens would allow mom, dad, & junior to enjoy the other "magical" parks while teenagers--tired of ISWA and Ellen's Energy Adventure--puke to their hearts content at "Vomit Kingdom" (Probably the name would have to be changed.)

The advantages are:
1. It would pull teens and "thrill seekers" out of MK, cutting down lines.
2. Overall, it would draw in more families with teenagers to WDW (making $$ for WDW)
3. It would compete head-to-head with Universal's "thrill" rides.

I have to take issue with 1 and 2.
my granddaughters (VSTFY and Aloha_Stitch) are teens ..and while yes ..they like the thrill rides at WDW.. the love Ellen, COP, POC, JC and all those other oldies but goodies as much or maybe even more then the thrill rides.
Also..they have never wanted to go to Universal .. and well to be honest ..they are theme park snobs *grin*

[rlander]

Originally Posted by tinkerbell

Also..they have never wanted to go to Universal .. and well to be honest ..they are theme park snobs *grin*

LOL!!! I may change my title to "Theme Park Snob". I love it!!!!!

[Disney6]

Originally Posted by dizneeluvr

I voted that they do need to do a thrill park. This doesn't have to consist of only roller coasters, they need to incorporate the 3-D rides similar to Spiderman and the Mummy (haven't been there since that opened though so don't really know what it's like).

I have a 13 year old daughter who is a thrill ride junkie and she loves Disney but when we asked about vacation to Cedar Point or Disney, she decided Cedar Point. We have thought for the last couple of years that Disney needs to add another park devoted solely for thrill rides and the like.

Disney is obviously like any other corporation in America, they are wanting the all mighty dollar. Wouldn't it be in their best interest to build a park like Universal and keep the money that vacationers spend at Universal in their own world?

I agree 100% that they need to add more "thrill" rides but not a park. I too would choose Cedar Point if I was a teen(gotta love the Dragster,Raptor and Millenium) but now as a parent with smaller kids WDW is our choice for a week long trip but we also do the Point for 2 days every summer. The addition of Everest at AK will help and they do need to add 1(much speculated) at the MK. Universal does steal away the teen and 20's crowd definitely but Disney I don't think will ever lose their niche for the crowd they attract.

[tinkerbell]

Originally Posted by rlander

LOL!!! I may change my title to "Theme Park Snob". I love it!!!!!

lol well I am guilty of being a theme park snob too :)

oh and as to #3 ..I dont feel that Disney should compete with Universal.. to me its always been the other way around ..why else would Universal use "fairy tales and pixie dust not your thing" in their commercials?

[coasterman2002]

I don't think that a coaster park would fit into WDW. If they built a coaster park, they would have to compete with Cedar Fair and Six Flags parks.