Just took my four year old on it a few weeks ago for the first time and she absolutely loved it. Best part is I never have to wait 35+ minutes for Gadgets Go Coaster again!
Im 50/50 on if she'd enjoy Space at this time but it wouldn't shock me.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Coco Boat Ride Coming to Disney California Adventure
- Thread starter mickEblu
- Start date
Just took my four year old on it a few weeks ago for the first time and she absolutely loved it. Best part is I never have to wait 35+ minutes for Gadgets Go Coaster again!
Im 50/50 on if she'd enjoy Space at this time but it wouldn't shock me.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
Weird. I guess they should put Go-Coaster in a dark building filled with the old spiders from TTBAB and it would then be the most intense coaster in southern California. It would go Big Thunder, Matterhorn, Space, then Go Coaster. It would even work for Toontown, since we would be the size of mice/chipmunks on the coaster, making the large spiders work,
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
No, it wouldn't become the most intense coaster, but you could certainly turn it into a terrifying experience for a kid, if you did as you suggest.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's rocket science.
Big Thunder is pretty visible and at DL especially is scaled pretty low to the ground. You have the mountain directly under you most of the time so you never feel particularly high. There are no huge drops, no surprises. There are fun thematic touches everywhere to distract you if you need something to focus on other than the ride itself. You have three lift hills placed throughout the ride that give you a quick break or slowdown from the experience should you need one. And the final lift leads into the least intense or interesting section, so you end going a moderate speed not really doing anything of interest.
Space Mountain, by contrast, is almost entirely closed off and inaccessible to you (and this is the one thing I'll give Tokyo's defunct music-less version: it was basically silent in there as well, which made it feel even more mysterious and creepy). Other than seeing the building you really have no context or information at all about what you're going to experience. Yes, the layout is basic and mostly has a lot of shallow drops and turns. If it was in a field it would be tame as heck, but the whole point of the ride is that it's not just in a field. The ride is scary not because it's in the dark, per se, but because the dark removes your ability to make sense of where you are, where you're going, what's going to happen, how much of the ride is left, etc. Yes, the ride is repetitive, but as a new rider you don't have that information and you could be going anywhere or doing anything and you wouldn't be able to anticipate any of it. There IS a decent sized drop right in the middle, almost certainly larger than any drop on Big Thunder, right at the moment where people might start to catch on to the ride's routine. And once you're off the lift hills it's basically nonstop action until you get to the final brakes, and you are continually helicing downward in a way that very much feels like the ride is getting faster and faster as you go. Unlike Big Thunder, you're not meandering into the brakes; it really feels like you have the speed to keep going for a bit longer than the ride lasts.
Therefore, most people would (and, judging by this thread, do) find Space Mountain to be a more intense experience than Big Thunder Mountain.
Big Thunder is pretty visible and at DL especially is scaled pretty low to the ground. You have the mountain directly under you most of the time so you never feel particularly high. There are no huge drops, no surprises. There are fun thematic touches everywhere to distract you if you need something to focus on other than the ride itself. You have three lift hills placed throughout the ride that give you a quick break or slowdown from the experience should you need one. And the final lift leads into the least intense or interesting section, so you end going a moderate speed not really doing anything of interest.
Space Mountain, by contrast, is almost entirely closed off and inaccessible to you (and this is the one thing I'll give Tokyo's defunct music-less version: it was basically silent in there as well, which made it feel even more mysterious and creepy). Other than seeing the building you really have no context or information at all about what you're going to experience. Yes, the layout is basic and mostly has a lot of shallow drops and turns. If it was in a field it would be tame as heck, but the whole point of the ride is that it's not just in a field. The ride is scary not because it's in the dark, per se, but because the dark removes your ability to make sense of where you are, where you're going, what's going to happen, how much of the ride is left, etc. Yes, the ride is repetitive, but as a new rider you don't have that information and you could be going anywhere or doing anything and you wouldn't be able to anticipate any of it. There IS a decent sized drop right in the middle, almost certainly larger than any drop on Big Thunder, right at the moment where people might start to catch on to the ride's routine. And once you're off the lift hills it's basically nonstop action until you get to the final brakes, and you are continually helicing downward in a way that very much feels like the ride is getting faster and faster as you go. Unlike Big Thunder, you're not meandering into the brakes; it really feels like you have the speed to keep going for a bit longer than the ride lasts.
Therefore, most people would (and, judging by this thread, do) find Space Mountain to be a more intense experience than Big Thunder Mountain.
Last edited:
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
None of you rode Big Thunder as children next to a heavy-set parent, clearly. Matterhorn was my intro coaster (no Go-Coaster in my youth) and your parents used to be able to hold you while you rode. The next step was Space with individual seats. Big Thunder was the true pinnacle as I had so much room between me and that shared lap bar. I remember having that bar in headlock as we tumbled around the mountain.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
I definitely rode Big Thunder with a larger parent.
Seems we just have very different ideas about what makes a coaster scary and why.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
Being afraid of dying on a ride is what gave me fear. With Space and Matterhorn I felt protected whereas with Big Thunder I felt far more exposed and less secure. Now I'd put Matterhorn as top due to the fact you don't lap sit anymore and it has similar headchopper elements with the rockwork, but a far more exposed ride vehicle and perceived height. Plus, I have a fear of heights so a blacked out starfield isn't as scary as seeing how high we are. It's why I will never ride the stationary gondolas for Pixar Pal-Around; the swinging ones don't go nearly as high.
So for me, my biggest fears were either hitting something with my head/arms or flying out. Or being really high up. Space Mountain didn't scare me because I couldn't see anything really to get hit by, it didn't seem that high up because I couldn't see any height, and there isn't a lot of negative G's in the ride aside from the small drop. Space Mountain has always seemed focused on feeling fast. And while I love going fast, it doesn't scare me. Its as scary as Radiator Springs Racers to me.
Now the one that traumatized me was Boomerang at Knotts. My mom offered to take me, but only if I rode Boomerang (a coaster I was always refusing to ride.) I agreed because I wanted to go to Knotts, and luckily, when we arrived Boomerang was down. I celebrated with a smugness that the gods could not ignore. When it reopened, my mom insisted on me keeping my word. Each click as we were pulled up backwards was accompanied by the wettest sobbing and pre-pubescent profanities. F bombs gurgled through snot and tears reverberated as the ground receded. I wish it had been in the dark.
Last edited:
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
Oof. Boomerang was such a terrible ride; I'm thankful it's gone.
Centauri Space Station
Well-Known Member
They call it the Blue Bayou
CoastalElite64
Active Member
A reason Coco may have a drop is because DCA leans on being the "adventure" park. Its the most consistent part of DCA.
CoastalElite64
Active Member
It's one of those projects where if they build it they will come. They just need a good location and have a good theme. It's so convenient for families to just sit and be served for a meal during peak times.
truecoat
Well-Known Member
My daughter rode that when she was 3. She was tall for her age.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
You say this as if there's tons of room just not really doing anything and waiting to be transformed into sitdown restaurants AND huge unmet demand for more sitdown space. Neither is the case. If it was, it wouldn't take so long for restaurants that aren't Blue Bayou, Carthay, or Lamplight Lounge to book up.
If they REALLY wanted to push table service into the park, Tiana's would have been a table service joint. On paper, it's so obvious, and yet, they didn't do that. That it wasn't might just tell you some things about Disneyland and table service demand/logistics.
mlayton144
Well-Known Member
I’m guessing the majority of DLRs (locals) want a quick hit and run meal, that and limited space means It won’t offer much in the way of table service. At one point in the recent past DLR had plans to be more of a vacation destination with more Disney owned hotels, restaurants and shopping. With DLforward could that still be in the cards or do you think DLR will forever be a locals park?
I think the one caveat would be another experiential, highly themed, big money generating sit down restaurant like Space 220 (probably with an IP tie in) or Be Our Guest (or the Frozen equivalent). Put it this way - DLR isn’t getting another Cafe Orleans or Carnation Cafe.
Adventureland Veranda
Well-Known Member
Well, I'll take another one over fast food or a churro cart.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
There is definitely a desire for DLR to become a true destination resort, but I don't think their own actions often support that coming to reality. It could come about someday, but I really think it requires long-term focus on quality, growth, and the right leadership-something that current Disney, with its ever-revolving door of executives especially in the theme parks, seems unable to do for any sustained period of time. The argument could be made that WDW IS a vacation destination less because of anything current Disney is doing or any vision of current Disney, but simply because it always has been, not because current Disney leadership could actually newly develop it into one if they had needed to do so.
Of course, with expansion will come an organic need for new restaurants, shopping, hotels, etc. but the resort as currently operating does not suggest a need for more table service restaurants, particularly within the parks. The only place that MIGHT support a brand new sitdown if done right would be Galaxy's Edge, but even then I think there's still work to be done to make GE feel more organically connected to the rest of the park, to make people want to go there of their own volition even if, say, Rise is down before that happens.
That locals piece is a big part of why there isn't as much of a market for table service IMO. I really credit HydroGuy on DisBoards for really spelling out the differences in dining between DLR and WDW in a way that made sense to me when I was first getting into all this: local mentality as described by him came down to, basically:
1.) Most/many people at Disneyland are not on vacation-which affects how much time/money people are willing to spend on food.
2.) Because of that, for many/most local visitors, eating was something to be done as quickly and cheaply as possible, because
3.) We come to Disneyland only x number of times a year, and we do that to go on rides, not to eat.
Of course, actual locals can chime in on that, but it doesn't strike me as particularly false based on what I've experience at DLR over the past ten years.
There's also much less of need to use Table Service as it is often used at WDW and other Disney resorts, as places to get out of the heat for a bit. Counter service is more efficient in both space and time needed, something very important within Disneyland Park especially, and I certainly don't see tons and tons of tables sitting empty when I spend time in the parks. Adding table service within DL itself just isn't practical, and DCA actually opened with too many table service restaurants and too little of everything else.
So to me it makes perfect sense that any table service development that has happened lately has largely done so within Downtown Disney or within the hotels. More will undoubtedly come as the property is developed as part of Disneyland Forward. But advocating putting more table service into the parks as they are right now "just because" doesn't make any sense based on the current operational realities of the resort.
Agree that’s why both of my examples were either part of a Fantasyland expansion or TL redo. Although if they’re just never going to address TL, you could make the case to drop a Space 220 like restaurant in the Launch Bay building.
As a “local” I can tell you we eat at the parks quite a bit, probably more than your average MK holder but its mostly quick service. We like to share multiple small meals/ snacks or go with the tried/ true options like Plaza Inn. We do a table service maybe every 6-8 trips or so to mix it up and it’s usually either Cafe Orleans or Carnation Cafe. I will say that as a “local” I’d be more likely to eat at a table service at the park than at DTD on a day trip. In fact I’ve rarely been eating at DTD at all but this will probably change when Porto’s opens. Until i realize I don’t need to waste my time doing that when I have a Porto’s 10 minutes away from my house. Sometimes we save our stomachs for some of our favorite spots outside the parks near DLR on our way home for dinner.
I think locals are more likely to eat at a table service at the park than DTD. Out of convenience but also because I have Porto’s and Din Tai Tung near my house. But I can’t sit from Cafe Orleans and watch the river or go to Space (shouldn’t that ever restaurant ever make it down here). The food would have to be pretty good/ unique to pull me to DTD often. Or cheap/ good/ reliable like Porto’s but the wait times will probably make that a rare occurrence for me.
Last edited:
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
As a local, I would eat at more sit-down restaurants if I could walk up and get a table. Or at least a reservation for in an hour or so. But every time I try and visit the MK lounge at DCA or Carthay Circle or BB, they are booked up for the day.
I'm not going to book a table weeks in advance for a DLR restaurant.
We always have really good luck with the walk in reservations for Carnation or Cafe Orleans that you can get from the app if you're close enough within the vicinity of the restaurant.
Also I still need to try MK Lounge. Just never crosses my mind when I'm there. I had heard it wasn't hard to get in there? Im sure the food is so so but looks really pleasant and a nice change of pace from the parks. Love that area of the park in general but since I don't really drink I have n reason to go up there. That Spanish style architecture with the ivy staircase going up to that secluded second level surrounded by greenery is a vibe.