Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WaltDisneyWorldSea

Collapse

Get Away Today

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CaliforniaAdventurer
    replied
    Well enough about Long Beach...

    I'd like to see some of these themed attractions make their way to Anaheim or Orlando.

    Leave a comment:


  • Coastierox
    replied
    Are you sure about that? I'm temped to pull a flag on the play and give you a five yard penalty.

    Leave a comment:


  • DifrntDrmr
    replied
    The reason Disney was going to build in Long Beach was they were already operating the Queen Mary complex.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herc
    replied
    If and when WDW is ready to add a fifth gate, it probably won't be by the Magic Kingdom. It's just too crowded up in that area. If there is to be a WDW DisneySeas, they can flood the land and make their own lakes and lagoons (re: Seven Seas Lagoon). It's true the view is much better in Tokyo DisneySeas being right on the water. I personally think it would be a great idea as long as Disney would spend the appropriate money to build a first class park.

    As for California, I doubt there will be another gate other than a water park. Frankly there isn't enough room to add a park, parking areas, and more hotels. They need to spend more on getting DCA up to speed and a full functioning park. Disneyland is in major need of some E-ticket attractions. I couldn't see spending more on another park because, from what I've read, there is a huge annual pass contingent. Disney needs to bring in the tourists who spend more on food and souvenirs. The possibility of the addition of a Disney cruise ship on the west coast full time will definitely increase the tourist trade.

    The additions I would make to the DL resort would be a water park, miniature golf course and a DVC Resort. If you build it, I will come.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pizzapants
    replied
    Originally posted by Adventurer
    It's my opinion. It's my opinion based on that they have built all the other theme parks far from the Magic Kingdom resort area. It's my opinion that they probably don't want to overcrowed the Magic Kingdom resort area because it is the most primo area of Walt Disney World. It's my opinion and that is all the support I need!
    Good form I'm glad people on here are able to distinguish between fact and opinion, and since it's your opinion, i wont ask anymore.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adventurer
    replied
    Originally posted by Pizzapants
    Just out of question, can you support that? There's land on the Lagoon and Bay Lake AND elsewhere.I don't really think we're at liberty to say where Disney *will* build the next park. It's just *if* they did buit DisneySea, one of the big bodies of water would be a great location.
    It's my opinion. It's my opinion based on that they have built all the other theme parks far from the Magic Kingdom resort area. It's my opinion that they probably don't want to overcrowed the Magic Kingdom resort area because it is the most primo area of Walt Disney World. It's my opinion and that is all the support I need!

    Leave a comment:


  • Pizzapants
    replied
    Originally posted by Adventurer
    Even if they *did* build a DisneySea park in Florida, they wouldn't build it anywhere near or on the Seven Seas Lagoon or Bay Lake. They've got more land elsewhere.
    Just out of question, can you support that? There's land on the Lagoon and Bay Lake AND elsewhere.I don't really think we're at liberty to say where Disney *will* build the next park. It's just *if* they did buit DisneySea, one of the big bodies of water would be a great location.

    Leave a comment:


  • Coastierox
    replied
    Originally posted by BackIntoYourSystem
    If a New Disneysea is built wouldn't that mean a new 20k Leagues would be built possibly?
    Thats what I am hoping for!

    Leave a comment:


  • BackIntoYourSystem
    replied
    If a New Disneysea is built wouldn't that mean a new 20k Leagues would be built possibly?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jspider
    replied
    Originally posted by soundtracker
    At the risk of getting shouted at, I'd like to point out a fact that you all seem to be overlooking so far. One of the great things about Tokyo DisneySea is that it's built... well, on the sea. It's a coastal park, and Tokyo Harbour acts as an impressive backdrop to many of the lands.
    It goes further than this, though. Taking the train out of central Tokyo, you follow the coast all the way along to Maihama (the station for the resort). The Pacific is visible for much of the journey. Besides, Tokyo is really just a coastal city, with very strong links to the sea, and a strong tradition of ocean going trade. Any of you who have wandered around the Minato-Ku district, or the artificial islands like Odaiba will know what I mean.
    Land-locked Orlando just wouldn't be the same. It wouldn't have the right context or history for such a park. What I'm basically trying to say is that DisneySea is special, because it's all about context. The geographical location is as significant as anything that goes on inside the park. Simply transplanting it to the heart of the Floridian swamp wouldn't really work. The park would still be great, but it wouldn't FEEL right. I really hope I'm making sense here.
    Besides, like I said, the park is special. If you started cloning it, it would lose that uniqueness, that exclusivity. I actually LIKE the fact that it's hard to get to. It's far more of a treat when you're actually there!

    that goes hand in hand with what I said a few posts back about how DisneySea was always designed to be built by an ocean and couldn't be built in urbanized California

    and yeah I suppose the same thing could be applied to florida as well

    all in all I think we may see it's concepts and level of detail move into our parks I just don't think we'll see it litteraly transplanted

    Leave a comment:


  • Adventurer
    replied
    Originally posted by soundtracker
    At the risk of getting shouted at, I'd like to point out a fact that you all seem to be overlooking so far. One of the great things about Tokyo DisneySea is that it's built... well, on the sea. It's a coastal park, and Tokyo Harbour acts as an impressive backdrop to many of the lands.
    It goes further than this, though. Taking the train out of central Tokyo, you follow the coast all the way along to Maihama (the station for the resort). The Pacific is visible for much of the journey. Besides, Tokyo is really just a coastal city, with very strong links to the sea, and a strong tradition of ocean going trade. Any of you who have wandered around the Minato-Ku district, or the artificial islands like Odaiba will know what I mean.
    Land-locked Orlando just wouldn't be the same. It wouldn't have the right context or history for such a park. What I'm basically trying to say is that DisneySea is special, because it's all about context. The geographical location is as significant as anything that goes on inside the park. Simply transplanting it to the heart of the Floridian swamp wouldn't really work. The park would still be great, but it wouldn't FEEL right. I really hope I'm making sense here.
    Besides, like I said, the park is special. If you started cloning it, it would lose that uniqueness, that exclusivity. I actually LIKE the fact that it's hard to get to. It's far more of a treat when you're actually there!
    You're right on the money, soundtracker.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adventurer
    replied
    Originally posted by CaliforniaAdventurer
    hey now ! ! !

    Iger was talking about FLORIDA. OK so it's saturated for now.
    Errr, it's saturated forever....

    Originally posted by CaliforniaAdventurer
    ...then they could double hotel capacity and have a real Disneyland Resort.
    Wish you may, wish you might, you've got what you got in California, and it's never going to be like Florida or Paris. There is no room.

    Originally posted by CaliforniaAdventurer
    And in Florida, they have the Seven Seas Lagoon and Bay Lake to play off of.
    Even if they *did* build a DisneySea park in Florida, they wouldn't build it anywhere near or on the Seven Seas Lagoon or Bay Lake. They've got more land elsewhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • CaliforniaAdventurer
    replied
    Paradise Pier in CA is totally landlocked between a bunch of motels and convenience stores and although it isn't exactly authentic, you do get a seaside experience... add in some sand and palm trees and I think it would have been convincing, especially if the Paradise Pier hotel was more like the Grand Floridian aka Hotel del Coronado and had sand in front of it.

    And in Florida, they have the Seven Seas Lagoon and Bay Lake to play off of. So although Tokyo and Hong Kong's seaside locations make them more ideal for seaside themes, they also lie right in the path of a possible tsunami, which is why Walt built DisneyWorld inland, farther from the hurricanes.

    Leave a comment:


  • soundtracker
    replied
    At the risk of getting shouted at, I'd like to point out a fact that you all seem to be overlooking so far. One of the great things about Tokyo DisneySea is that it's built... well, on the sea. It's a coastal park, and Tokyo Harbour acts as an impressive backdrop to many of the lands.
    It goes further than this, though. Taking the train out of central Tokyo, you follow the coast all the way along to Maihama (the station for the resort). The Pacific is visible for much of the journey. Besides, Tokyo is really just a coastal city, with very strong links to the sea, and a strong tradition of ocean going trade. Any of you who have wandered around the Minato-Ku district, or the artificial islands like Odaiba will know what I mean.
    Land-locked Orlando just wouldn't be the same. It wouldn't have the right context or history for such a park. What I'm basically trying to say is that DisneySea is special, because it's all about context. The geographical location is as significant as anything that goes on inside the park. Simply transplanting it to the heart of the Floridian swamp wouldn't really work. The park would still be great, but it wouldn't FEEL right. I really hope I'm making sense here.
    Besides, like I said, the park is special. If you started cloning it, it would lose that uniqueness, that exclusivity. I actually LIKE the fact that it's hard to get to. It's far more of a treat when you're actually there!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jspider
    replied
    kinda off topic for a WDW forum

    I would say that yes expansion is plausible in DLR before WDW ever adds another park and is actualy more logical in some ways

    I'd say WDW and Paris have the longest roads ahead of em as far as adding other parks go

    WDW needs to get maintenace up to higher standards as well as increasing ride counts in the smaller parks

    then it needs to sell people moreso on the idea that not every vacation needs to be around the MK

    I sugges de emphasizing the castle and more emphasizing on the whole package and how there's something for everyone

    this will probably get more of the diversified market Disney wants

    evening out the popularity of the park means no one park is pivatle amoung the others and it means that whatever large groups of people the supposed 5th park brings can still be distlilled more along all the parks rather then mostly the MK getting EVERYTHING (trust me it works better this way all parks can reach capacity more often and not just MK)

    at this stage WDW is not lacking anything to develope for and can easily go about adding three new rides almost every year (I say this because I'd say that AK's standouts were always three ride based at least from the add *ITTBAB, the Safari and the Rapids, if you want htough you can sub out any one of them for dinosoar but honestly they only advertised about two or three things)

    at this point though all Disney parks need to grow and expand in a thoughtfull manner rather then deluting themsleves out over largue spaces

    Leave a comment:


  • WDW1974
    replied
    ^^^Yes, Iger was talking about Florida, but do you really think Disney would seriously consider spending money on a third park when they are struggling to get people to visit a second gate after spending over a billion dollars? Maybe in a decade when DCA is finally a real Disney park to the SoCal audience, then Disney can think about a third park. They should be thinking about a new hotel, DVC complex and/or water park right now.

    Leave a comment:


  • CaliforniaAdventurer
    replied
    Originally posted by WDW1974
    At least in the USA, I think Disney understands this now. Hence, Iger's comments. Yes, land has been set aside at WDW for a fifth park, but that means nothing. Disney owns close to 35,000 acres in Central Florida and has only developed a quarter of it...
    hey now ! ! !

    Iger was talking about FLORIDA. OK so it's saturated for now.

    But Disneyland is still waiting for a decent second gate and a good third park would work here too, then they could double hotel capacity and have a real Disneyland Resort.

    Leave a comment:


  • WDW1974
    replied
    Originally posted by Adventurer
    ....and hopefully never. WDW has more than enough. Building yet *another* theme park at WDW would just be ridiculous. Just as HK Disneyland is already ridiculous.

    NOTE TO DISNEY: STOP BUILDING THEME PARKS. YOU HAVE FAR MORE THAN ENOUGH ALREADY. JUST UPGRADE AND IMPROVE WHAT YOU HAVE. THERE IS SUCH A THING AS OVER SATURATION AND YOU WERE THERE YESTERDAY.
    You just stole my thunder! But you're so right. And, at least in the USA, I think Disney understands this now. Hence, Iger's comments. Yes, land has been set aside at WDW for a fifth park, but that means nothing. Disney owns close to 35,000 acres in Central Florida and has only developed a quarter of it.

    But, honestly, any rational person (and that might eliminate some fanboys and girls here) should be able to see that WDW has oversaturated the market and as its last two parks have shown, Disney now sees diminishing returns.

    This is a good thing. I'd rather see a few hundred million get pumped into the existing parks, or even used toward transport issues, than see another half-day park tossed out there in the misguided belief it will extend peoples' vacations. This isn't Europe. Most Americans are VERY lucky if they have more than a week off a year to begin with.

    Leave a comment:


  • CaliforniaAdventurer
    replied
    Originally posted by Adventurer
    ....and hopefully never. WDW has more than enough. Building yet *another* theme park at WDW would just be ridiculous. Just as HK Disneyland is already ridiculous.

    NOTE TO DISNEY: STOP BUILDING THEME PARKS. YOU HAVE FAR MORE THAN ENOUGH ALREADY. JUST UPGRADE AND IMPROVE WHAT YOU HAVE. THERE IS SUCH A THING AS OVER SATURATION AND YOU WERE THERE YESTERDAY.
    Uhmm so does this mean you wont' be going with me to New Dehli Disneyland ? ? ? They make GREAT sandwiches.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adventurer
    replied
    Originally posted by TDLFAN
    Iger said it best last week: NO MORE WDW PARKS are planned at this point in time.

    ....and hopefully never. WDW has more than enough. Building yet *another* theme park at WDW would just be ridiculous. Just as HK Disneyland is already ridiculous.

    NOTE TO DISNEY: STOP BUILDING THEME PARKS. YOU HAVE FAR MORE THAN ENOUGH ALREADY. JUST UPGRADE AND IMPROVE WHAT YOU HAVE. THERE IS SUCH A THING AS OVER SATURATION AND YOU WERE THERE YESTERDAY.

    Leave a comment:

Get Away Today Footer

Collapse
Working...
X