Should there be more Disney parks?

[Loomis]

The opening of Disneyland Hong Kong marks Disney's 11th park globally, with parks now operating in 4 countries.

There is some debate that, like the 'cheap-quels', this may be overextending the brand and diluting it.

So what do you think? More Disney Parks around the world, or keep them small but special?

[Escapay]

So long as Disney doesn't turn into an overpriced version of Six Flags, i'll be fine with more parks. Six Flags has a lot of forgettable parks spread all over the US and all over the world. Forgettable, as in, you go to it, you have fun, a week later, you don't really remember it unless you're a season-pass holder.

The thing Disney needs to do is find a NEW theme for the parks. Yes, they practically originated the "theme park", but their latest incarnations (California Adventure, Disney Studios Paris, Hong Kong Disneyland) are essentially watered down versions of successful parks. California Adventure is simply a Disney-fied regular theme park, with a few original attractions, several carryovers from other parks, and a lot of amusement park attractions. Disney Studios Paris is MGM in Europe. Hong Kong Disneyland is essentially the standard park on a smaller scale. Standard as in, Disneyland, Magic Kingdom, Tokyo Disneyland, and Disneyland Paris. It's the standard "lands" with the standard "rides" except in another location and on a much smaller scale.

Disney needs to find another Epcot. Epcot had a theme ahead of its time, and while it's a far cry from Walt's original vision of Epcot, it's by far the most unique of all 11 parks. If Disney were to create a new park in say...Australia, to attract more tourism there, they need to do more than make another standard clone. Australian Adventure? Australian Studios? Nah. They need to create a park so timeless and universal for all of Disney, but exclusive solely to the Australia park. Attractions based on Disney characters and movies that are not only a nod at the already existing attractions, but their own attraction in itself. The Peter Pan attraction that's currently in every standard park is essentially the same thing. You're in a flying boat and you go over miniatures. If Disney is to create a new park, they need to create new attractions.

I'm all for synergy between the parks and sharing of some attractions, but if you've got 10 versions of the same attraction at every park, it loses what made it special in its first park: the mere fact that it was uniqe to that park alone. Mickey's Philharmagic, for example, is only available at Magic Kingdom in Walt Disney World. It can easily be integrated into any other park, just make a few prints of the film, send it to the park, and have them build a theater for it or convert one. But it's unique solely to Magic Kingdom, and while I'm sure many would clamor for it to be in Disneyland or some other park, I'd prefer it to be a one-park attraction.

Escapay

[AwallaceUNC]

I'm all for new parks, but not new resorts (at least not in the US). Having one on each coast is enough to sustain the country and make a Disney vacation that nationally-shared treat that it is. As Escapay pointed out, a new Epcot or Animal Kingdom or something like that would be a great addition to any of the exisiting resorts (and WDW has the room). It's not as if I'm unsatisfied with the amount of parkage already made available at, say, WDW, but I'd gladly embrace a new park.

As for the rest of the world, well, I suppose I can get on board with the one opening in Australia, but that's probably where the line should be drawn. That leaves only Africa (no way is a park going there), South America (doubtful- Florida and Cali aren't that far away for much of the continent), and Antarctica (there's an idea!) without a resort. Opening too many (and especially too many at once) does really risk diluting the 'brand.'

And yes, they should work on enriching what they already have first, as some places really need it.

-Aaron

[Escapay]

Antarctica (there's an idea!) without a resort.

Didn't you hear? Disney is opening "Disney's Antarctican Adventure" in Antarctica! A wonderful theme park preserved in ice and they're charging penguins two pebbles to get in! They'll get to ride such attractions as "Peter Pan's Frozen Flight", "The Pirates of the Antarctican" and "Haunted Explorer's Tent". Also, you've got the wonderful characters "Parka-wearing Mickey Mouse" and "Wearing Thermal Underwear Donald Duck".

Escapay

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

I don't mind new theme parks in other countries!

I mean I have yet to actually leave the United States! I haven't even been to Canada or Mexico! So if they do open theme parks in places like Australia, London, Antartica etc. , it won't matter to me since I never go to these places. I'm sure there are plenty of people in those places who like Disney, but aren't fortunate enough to go to a Disney theme park, so I don't mind if they build other theme parks in other countries.

Now if they mean building new theme parks in other resorts like Disneyland or Walt Disney World, well I think they could build a water park or some cool park at Disneyland, but they pretty much covered everything at Walt Disney World! I think all they can do now is think of new rides and ideas for the parks and update them. There is no need for a new park.

[Kram Nebuer]

Mickey's Philharmagic, for example, is only available at Magic Kingdom in Walt Disney World. It can easily be integrated into any other park, just make a few prints of the film, send it to the park, and have them build a theater for it or convert one. But it's unique solely to Magic Kingdom, and while I'm sure many would clamor for it to be in Disneyland or some other park, I'd prefer it to be a one-park attraction.

Escapay

You're wrong. There's one in Hong Kong. Hong Kong has some unique attractions like...Fantasyland Gardens and their food places all sell Chinese cuisine except for the one burger place in Tomorrowland.

[AwallaceUNC]

There was talk of opening lots of mini-parks (like stationary fairs) all over the US, which I think would go down in the books as one of the worst ideas in history. I hope that isn't something they seriously consider following through with.

-Aaron

[Wonderlicious]

I am officially boycotting Disney until they build a George W Bush Gardens.

Joking aside (please, did you think I was serious? ), I am for new parks. However, like Escapay said, as long as there is originality. I didn't mind Walt Disney Studios in Paris, but it is true that it is unoriginal, and was actually somewhat deserted when we went in Summer 2004. The thing is though, a lot of possible themed foundation is covered. The actual Magic Kingdom parks cover a lot of things, education got claimed by Epcot, Nature got covered by Tokyo Disney Seas and the Animal Kingdom and Movies got their own parks with Disney MGM Studios and the Walt Disney Studios park. There isn't much else left to cover off the top of my head.

[Loomis]

Most of you seem to have hit on the nerve of what I was asking, and that is the cloning of global Disney parks.

As was quoted over in this thread:

"Many Disneyphiles fear that the consolidation means that there will be widespread cloning in the parks, and that Magic Kingdom-style parks, for example, will become indistinguishable from one another. [...]

That said, there will still likely be clones of new attractions appearing worldwide, especially the less-expensive but highly successful ones such as the Buzz Lightyear Space Ranger Spin/Astro Blasters ride currently making its way around the world. The efficiencies of getting multiple installations out of one attraction design can't really be ignored. "

Obviously, it makes sense to have a basic Disneyland 'feel' to each park, and certain rides will have to be carried over to each park due to:
i) popularity
ii) efficiency (as mentioned above).

It is hard to imagine a Disney Park without certain attractions, after all.

All that said, I wonder just how far this can be pushed. While I would naturally love for an Australian park to open up - we really don't have many big theme parks to start with - there is something special about having to travel to get to one. Going to California was definitely an 'experience' for me, and I definitely look forward to my next Disney holiday. If I had easy access to a park across town, or the next state over, perhaps it would lose some of its 'magic'.

I'm all for certain attractions being in every Resort - it is hard to imagine a Disney Resort without Pirates of the Caribbean, for example (although Hong Kong has launched without it) or some of the more classic rides, but I think that if the parks continue to expand globally, they need to find unique things

I've gone ahead and made a list of the way that each park has distinguished itself from the last here:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... hp?t=12098

So in some ways, the 'Magic Kingdom' element can be seen to be similiar in each park - which I believe is important - while at the same time, little difference can be found. As people have suggested here, perhaps the key is in finding a companion park to each Magic Kingdom area that is unique to that Resort (e.g. California Adventure; DisneySea in Tokyo; MGM/Animal Kingdom/EPCOT in Florida; Disney Studios in Paris). Tokyo and Florida are the ones that have truly succeeded in this sense, with both their Magic Kingdom-style sections and additional parks being truly unique. THAT is something I would welcome globally.

[I am the Doctor]

I voted a qualified "maybe". While I think some of the other Disney resort locations around the world might benefit from a second or third park, I don't think adding yet another park to Florida is a good idea. If you add yet another park to Florida, WDW will monopolize an entire week of your time (if it doesn't already), not to mention the costs involved (We all know Disney vacations are not "cheap"). After all, if you're going to travel to WDW, and many travel from quite a distance, you're gonna want to visit as much as you can with the time that you have.

I think the optimal amount of parks at any Disney resort is two. When I visited Disneyland back in late August, I found that just having two parks (Disneyland and California Adventure) means I was able to enjoy my visit, not rushing about feeling like if I didn't I was going to miss something. Three parks should be the max for any Disney Resort, IMO. With three, you feel a bit more rushed than you do with two, but it's still doable in three or four days.

[GhostHost]

how about adding more rides to the wdw parks. We need more than 5 rides in MGM.

[memnv]

I think 2 many parks will take away the Magic.

[Raydawggie]

No. No more Disneyland clones. What I do approve of is new parks with new themes at the existing complexes. A villains park at WDW, for instance, would be great! More than anything, though, I want to see new and unique attractions at the existing parks. First priority should be adding more rides to World Showcase!

[Big Disney Fan]

I voted "maybe" because I think they should update the parks in existence first. In fact, I am starting to development threads on how to update the existing parks as well, starting with the one that started it all, the Disneyland Resort: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... hp?t=21050.

And then, once the parks grow a bit, I say put a park in someplace in South America. Like, say, Brazil.

And there will be more threads on improving the parks in the near future.

[dizfan]

I would have selected "Yes - but expand the ones they have now first".

HKDL needs a second gate and DLR would benifit from it's third.

[Jack Skellington]

I want a Disney Park in every region in the world, Australia and Dubai included. Dubai is already having Universal Studios, Marvel, Paramount Pictures, Arabian nights, and Life Like prehistoric Safari theme parks being built and are expected for the following 3 or 4 years, so If they built a Disney Park, It would be one of the most popular theme park destinations in the world. James Rasulo also said he was intrested in Dubai's developments, but doesn't want to open a park there for the time being, so I hope that the theme park plan would make him want to make one soon.

[dizfan]

Epcot, it's by far the most unique of all 11 parks.

Nope. Tokyo DisneySea takes that title. TDS makes any other Disney park, as great as they are, look...um...not as great as it looked before visiting TDS.

[Disney-Fan]

TDS is the most beautiful by far, but that doesn't make it most unique. Fact is, it's basically one huge homage to the original concept of Disneyland (DisneySea. Get the parallels?). Nothing too unique about the park as a concept. Epcot, on the other hand, is still one of a kind, even after 25 years of existance.

[dizfan]

First I need to ask: have you been to both Epcot and Tokyo DisneySea? Based on your oversimplified description, it doesn't sound like you have.

It being the most beautiful is definatley ONE reason that makes it the most unique Disney park on earth. WDI really redefined what a theme park can be (or better yet, should be) with TDS.

[Disney-Fan]

You don't need to be in both parks to get their respective concepts. Besides, did you even bother to read what I wrote? I'm pretty much with you 100% on it being the most beautiful, but since when does prettiest = most unique?