Is It Bad That I’m The Only Person That Loves Fantasyland Theatre?

[mickEblu]

What he's saying is that a well-done production could in some ways help capacity more than a new attraction because almost no one is coming to the park specifically for the show.

So a well-done show helps the rest of the park more by giving people (a lot of people) that are already in the park another place to go without also drawing a huge number of additional guests into the gate. It's taking stress off of other park infrastructure rather than adding to it.

Short term maybe but long term you’re better off with the E ticket attraction for capacity. Not many people are going to the park for any one specific ride. It’s the collection of rides and experience as a whole that has people going back.

Of course this isn’t to say Disneyland needs another E ticket at the expense of its only outdoor theatre venue.

 

[Phroobar]

In the old days, Disneyland used to have different shows during the seasons. It was great advertising instead of building something big over four years. Too bad current Disney is too cheap to rotate shows to keep people coming back. I guess they don't have to with the current throngs.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Short term maybe but long term you’re better off with the E ticket attraction for capacity. Not many people are going to the park for any one specific ride. It’s the collection of rides and experience as a whole that has people going back.

Of course this isn’t to say Disneyland needs another E ticket at the expense of its only outdoor theatre venue.

No, it is not just short term. If you focus too much on investments that induce demand you push your visitation beyond your design day capacity. The more you strain capacity the more difficult it becomes to recover because small additions become overwhelmed, meaning you need a higher investment for more capacity, but higher investment come with a desire to increase revenue and induce more demand. You get stuck in a vicious cycle. It's very much the problem at Walt Disney World where the parks do not have adequate capacity. Ideally as you grow you want to alternate your investments between inducing demand to grow and then absorbing that demand to maintain your experience.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Short term maybe but long term you’re better off with the E ticket attraction for capacity. Not many people are going to the park for any one specific ride. It’s the collection of rides and experience as a whole that has people going back.

Of course this isn’t to say Disneyland needs another E ticket at the expense of its only outdoor theatre venue.

What we're saying isn't don't build E tickets; just that big theater productions are, in some ways, more helpful at reallocating existing park capacity than new rides are.

When MMRR opens, it will help to a degree with the other lines, but that will be more than negated by the large number of people that will be drawn to the park to experience the shiny new ride. And since any new ride (no matter what it is) can't handle that demand all by itself, the massive crowd of people will inevitably spread into other lines too.

BUT a show in the Fantasyland Theater is all upside, taking thousands of people off of the midway, but it's also not the sort of thing that people are going to travel to the park specifically to experience. Much in the same way that after awhile no one was coming to the park specifically to watch Soundsational, but Soundsational could still take a little bit of heat off of the ride lines for awhile.

Part of the reason WDW in general and DHS in particular has all of those shows even though they're older than dirt is that they effectively take people off of midways and out of ride lines. No one's paying $170 to go to DHS to watch Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular, true, but thousands of people watching that means there are thousands less in front of you for ROTR. Which is why it's really a shame that apart from Fantasyland Theater and Hyperion, Disneyland just doesn't do these sorts of shows. Sure, they'd have to change them out (a win for the consumer but probably annoying for DLR, hence why they don't happen much), but if DLR had a number of big production shows going every day in the afternoon, all of them soaking up thousands, you'd feel a difference in crowding level.

So both new rides and big shows are helpful for crowds in different ways, even if they have different levels of drawing power.

 

[mickEblu]

No, it is not just short term. If you focus too much on investments that induce demand you push your visitation beyond your design day capacity. The more you strain capacity the more difficult it becomes to recover because small additions become overwhelmed, meaning you need a higher investment for more capacity, but higher investment come with a desire to increase revenue and induce more demand. You get stuck in a vicious cycle. It's very much the problem at Walt Disney World where the parks do not have adequate capacity. Ideally as you grow you want to alternate your investments between inducing demand to grow and then absorbing that demand to maintain your experience.

Do you consider a new E ticket (with good capacity) to be a small addition?

Does any of this matter when they have a reservation system in place that’s supposedly there to keep the parks from being too crowded? It shouldn’t except we know the parks are still crowded and Disney doesn’t really care about that. The parks are always going to be crowded. New ride or not.

The example you give is good for DHS but not really for Disneyland that’s full of attractions and packed all year long with millions of diehard annual pass holders that will go to the park rain or shine all year long for things as small as a new popcorn bucket.

So right now for Disneyland as it exists in 2022, would you say a new show in Toontown would be better for park capacity long term than MMRR that’s coming in January?

 

[mickEblu]

What we're saying isn't don't build E tickets; just that big theater productions are, in some ways, more helpful at reallocating existing park capacity than new rides are.

When MMRR opens, it will help to a degree with the other lines, but that will be more than negated by the large number of people that will be drawn to the park to experience the shiny new ride. And since any new ride (no matter what it is) can't handle that demand all by itself, the massive crowd of people will inevitably spread into other lines too.

BUT a show in the Fantasyland Theater is all upside, taking thousands of people off of the midway, but it's also not the sort of thing that people are going to travel to the park specifically to experience. Much in the same way that after awhile no one was coming to the park specifically to watch Soundsational, but Soundsational could still take a little bit of heat off of the ride lines for awhile.

Part of the reason WDW in general and DHS in particular has all of those shows even though they're older than dirt is that they effectively take people off of midways and out of ride lines. No one's paying $170 to go to DHS to watch Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular, true, but thousands of people watching that means there are thousands less in front of you for ROTR. Which is why it's really a shame that apart from Fantasyland Theater and Hyperion, Disneyland just doesn't do these sorts of shows. Sure, they'd have to change them out (a win for the consumer but probably annoying for DLR, hence why they don't happen much), but if DLR had a number of big production shows going every day in the afternoon, all of them soaking up thousands, you'd feel a difference in crowding level.

So both new rides and big shows are helpful for crowds in different ways, even if they have different levels of drawing power.

I get the FL theatre example and it makes sense in regards to reallocating existing guests but the thing is we’re talking about Disneyland. MMRR here is one more attraction in two parks that have tons of them. The parks are packed with annual pass holders that are coming all year no matter what. That’s why I said short term yes I can understand the point that a show can be better for park capacity as demand will be higher for a while. But long term I don’t find that to make sense when it comes to Disneyland. The demand will eventually drop to the point where the capacity the new ride creates is a net positive for overall park capacity. Especially as I said at a park like Disneyland that full of attractions.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I get the FL theatre example and it makes sense in regards to reallocating existing guests but the thing is we’re talking about Disneyland. MMRR here is one more attraction in two parks that have tons of them. The parks are packed with annual pass holders that are coming all year no matter what. That’s why I said short term yes I can understand the point that a show can be better for park capacity as demand will be higher for a while. But long term I don’t find that to make sense when it comes to Disneyland. The demand will eventually drop to the point where the capacity the new ride creates is a net positive for overall park capacity. Especially as I said at a park like Disneyland that it’s full of attractions.

I feel like in some sense we're saying the same thing-both are good for park capacity. And we're in agreement that, eventually, demand for new things will level off somewhat and provide a net gain in park capacity.

BUT there's no reason why the parks can't ALSO work a bit harder to beef up their entertainment lineup by adding additional big, splashy shows IN ADDITION TO the ones currently there and take more guests off the midways in that fashion as well. Of course there are spatial and historical considerations that may make this somewhat prohibitive, but I feel like the resort could try just a little bit harder than they currently are to make it work. I feel like there's more of an audience to sit in the shade or inside and watch a high quality show than some might think. Heck, Tokyo Disneyland has, like, three of these venues just within the same gate, and DisneySea several more. The DLR parks could be similar.

I just feel like so many people are so quick to dismiss these shows at DLR, even within the company (often stereotyped as "People that go to DLR don't like shows, they like rides" etc etc), even though this works very effectively at many of the other Disney parks. The right mix of shows would provide a clear benefit for everyone, even for people who never set foot into any of those theaters. It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition; it could be both.

 

[mickEblu]

I feel like in some sense we're saying the same thing-both are good for park capacity. And we're in agreement that, eventually, demand for new things will level off somewhat and provide a net gain in park capacity.

BUT there's no reason why the parks can't ALSO work a bit harder to beef up their entertainment lineup by adding additional big, splashy shows IN ADDITION TO the ones currently there and take more guests off the midways in that fashion as well. Of course there are spatial and historical considerations that may make this somewhat prohibitive, but I feel like the resort could try just a little bit harder than they currently are to make it work. I feel like there's more of an audience to sit in the shade or inside and watch a high quality show than some might think. Heck, Tokyo Disneyland has, like, three of these venues just within the same gate, and DisneySea several more. The DLR parks could be similar.

I just feel like so many people are so quick to dismiss these shows at DLR, even within the company (often stereotyped as "People that go to DLR don't like shows, they like rides" etc etc), even though this works very effectively at many of the other Disney parks. The right mix of shows would provide a clear benefit for everyone, even for people who never set foot into any of those theaters. It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition; it could be both.

For sure it could be both and ideally it would be. I can understand why they opt for rides instead of shows though considering the guest demo and lack of space. I’m not really a show guy but I think they re healthier for the park then the spectaculars that clog up sections of the park for hours. Even if the spectaculars are… more spectacular. Even those I’m usually one and done or once every few years.

 

[TsWade2]

Man, it's been awhile. So far, I haven't been obsessing of Disneyland making a new show that's similar to Mickey and the Magical Map, which is good. I've been thinking about what's Disneyland next new fantasyland theatre show from time to time, but no obsession whatsoever. But let's see what happens after the premiere of Wish. In the meantime, enjoy A Tale of The Lion King as an understudy for Disneyland's new show that will be hopefully in a longly development.

 

[Phroobar]

Man, it's been awhile. So far, I haven't been obsessing of Disneyland making a new show that's similar to Mickey and the Magical Map, which is good. I've been thinking about what's Disneyland next new fantasyland theatre show from time to time, but no obsession whatsoever. But let's see what happens after the premiere of Wish. In the meantime, enjoy A Tale of The Lion King as an understudy for Disneyland's new show that will be hopefully in a longly development.

Seems like the perfect opportunity to make a Wish show. Maybe that is suppose to replace Rogers the Musical?

 

[choco choco]

Original Poster (OP), so you don’t love the Fantasyland theater you love the live shows.

That’s not a controversial opinion. I think everyone agrees a theme park needs live shows of some sort. The hate for the theater is for the theater itself and the location, which is this ugly tent where the top of the tent sticks out above the treetops, viewable even in pictures in front of the castle. It looks cheap and out of place, and is in this awkward central location. From above, its placement is akin to a nice brick wall ruined because somebody decided to place one giant off-color brick smack dab in the middle, like the bricklayer got lazy and couldn't be bothered that one day.

Ideally it would be a nicer facility blended in somewhere else. Tokyo is an example of somewhere that got it right. Or Paris.

 

[Dear Prudence]

I am going to echo some other comments here, you are not the only one. It's way nicer than some "real" venues I have been to.

 

[TsWade2]

Original Poster (OP), so you don’t love the Fantasyland theater you love the live shows.

That’s not a controversial opinion. I think everyone agrees a theme park needs live shows of some sort. The hate for the theater is for the theater itself and the location, which is this ugly tent where the top of the tent sticks out above the treetops, viewable even in pictures in front of the castle. It looks cheap and out of place, and is in this awkward central location. From above, its placement is akin to a nice brick wall ruined because somebody decided to place one giant off-color brick smack dab in the middle, like the bricklayer got lazy and couldn't be bothered that one day.

Ideally it would be a nicer facility blended in somewhere else. Tokyo is an example of somewhere that got it right. Or Paris.

I will admit that the tent or Wonder Bra as you people called it, is a little outdated. So, maybe they could make a new tent or make a new ceiling to block the sun from the audience.

 

[NobodyElse]

I have my own fond memories.

 

[Disney Vault]

Go look at the theater Tokyo recently got and then I dare you to not hate the fantasyland theater

 

[TsWade2]

Go look at the theater Tokyo recently got and then I dare you to not hate the fantasyland theater

I saw one on youtube where someone kind of sneak up video record that, and it looks amazing!

 

[celluloid]

I was blown away by the Fantasyland Forest Theater in Japan. Not only the theater, but the production.