News Coco Boat Ride Coming to Disney California Adventure

[Disney Irish]

Pirates was dug down I believe, that’s how they could create the epic scale inside the main show without building a crazy tall box of a warehouse.

Except that it was dug down as part of the overall NOS project, Pirates was not the sole focus of the project. Unlike here where Coco is the sole focus of the project. So that would be the closest comparison. Heck I think (haven't actually measured) NOS is probably close to double the size of the Coco area, if it was the same size I'd actually expect them to add a restaurant.

So yes they can dig down below grade, but will they, probably not. If anything goes below grade it would probably be storage or maybe the parade building as replacements for what is being removed.

 

[DrStarlander]

I don't see where the thread title says "What are your ideas of what Disney should do with Coco now that its coming to DCA". That seems to be what you only want to discuss, so maybe go start a thread for people that just want to discuss that?

The range of topics in a thread can certainly be limited by the title (e.g., "construction") but if there's no specific narrow topic, I don't need the title to present an invitation or comprehensive list of allowable topics, as you suggest. Thread titles would need to be hundreds of words long to invite all the possible discussions.

For example, I don't see anything in the thread title about whether Coco will involve digging underground but there you are a few minutes ago discussing it. Why did you feel that was okay if the title didn't say anything about "Will Disney dig underground"? Has Disney said anything about digging under ground? Are you just...talking about some wild speculation..rather than exactly what we know Disney is doing?

You are often the pot calling the kettle black.

Also you're not talking about the future of this project, you're talking about "well this is what I would do if I was in-charge of building this thing out" as you were trying to do in the Avenger thread with your Spider-Man coaster discussion. So that isn't trying to stay on-topic, that is trying to throw out your Imagineering ideas to start a different topic under the guise of "well its about the project IP so still on topic".

I am certainly talking about the future of the project. We know very little about this project, which hasn't even started construction yet. And I'm talking about whether it could include a restaurant, the evidence why this is a possibility citing Disney parks examples, and opinions about how likely it is. Neither of us know if this project will include a restaurant and my bringing it up as a possibility is every bit as reasonable as the conversation you're having about whether they will dig in the ground. Both are speculative and based on looking at Disney parks history.

...But the difference is (as evident in your Spider-Man comment) is that you're not fairly reacting to my posts about Coco today, you're carrying forward some sort of grudge about the past. Whatever.

Because as much as I participate in thread drift and derailing a thread I do like to drive things back on topic as much as possible and keep the Mods jobs easier. The unwritten rule that the Mods have directed in many a thread to prevent thread drift and derailing a thread is when a project location is known to keep all "they should have done this" and "well I would do this instead" type of discussion to a minimum. But hey I'm not a mod, do what you want, I was just trying to keep things on topic and make the Mods life easier for when they invariably have to clean things up later.

Yes, thank you. Indeed you are often off-topic. And many times I've seen that and been tempted to point that out. But I don't have a passion for conflict and being petty.

 

[Disney Irish]

The range of topics in a thread can certainly be limited by the title (e.g., "construction") but if there's no specific narrow topic, I don't need the title to present an invitation or comprehensive list of allowable topics, as you suggest. Thread titles would need to be hundreds of words long to invite all the possible discussions.

Difference though is again trying to keep on-topic. It was one thing to say "I wonder if Disney will build a restaurant as part of this" as you started out and people start to respond. But then you turned it into "well my whole point is really what Disney should do, not what they will do". That is now trying to move this into a fictional world of "well this is what I would do if I was in-charge" Imagineering topic.

For example, I don't see anything in the thread title about whether Coco will involve digging underground but there you are a few minutes ago discussing it. Why did you feel that was okay if the title didn't say anything about "Will Disney dig underground"? Has Disney said anything about digging under ground? Are you just...talking about some wild speculation..rather than exactly what we know Disney is doing?

Someone replied to me about digging underground, so I responded. I do the same with you out of courtesy, even if its something off-topic.

You are often the pot calling the kettle black.

As is the case with every human on the planet, we're all guilty of it, so don't know what your point is here other than to show I'm fallible too. Congrats you sleuthed me out, I'm not perfect. But good thing I never claimed to be.

I am certainly talking about the future of the project. We know very little about this project, which hasn't even started construction yet. And I'm talking about whether it could include a restaurant, the evidence why this is a possibility citing Disney parks examples, and opinions about how likely it is. Neither of us know if this project will include a restaurant and my bringing it up as a possibility is every bit as reasonable as the conversation you're having about whether they will dig in the ground. Both are speculative and based on looking at Disney parks history.

You specifically said your point isn't about whether they "could" its about whether they "should" build a restaurant and then why this location is not right for the project since it won't allow them to do what you feel they should for this IP. That isn't talking about the future of this project that is griping and is trying to direct the conversation into an Imagineering discussion about what you would do.

...But the difference is (as evident in your Spider-Man comment) is that you're not fairly reacting to my posts about Coco today, you're carrying forward some sort of grudge about the past. Whatever.

Actually I have fairly reacted to your posts about Coco today, I gave a fair response to your initial post about the restaurant. There is no grudge, as I don't hold grudges with forum members. If I did I wouldn't be responding to you.

 

[DrStarlander]

Difference though is again trying to keep on-topic. It was one thing to say "I wonder if Disney will build a restaurant as part of this" as you started out and people start to respond. But then you turned it into "well my whole point is really what Disney should do, not what they will do". That is now trying to move this isn't a fictional world of "well this is what I would do if I was in-charge" Imagineering topic.

Yes people on the forum talk about what Disney should do all the time. What they should do with annual passes or reservation policies or hours of operation or frequency of shows and live entertainment or types of attractions to be added or whether the cocktails should be premixed or not and on and on and on. Saying "the Coco attraction should include a restaurant" is not Imagineering.

You specifically said your point isn't about whether they "could" its about whether they "should" build a restaurant and then why this location is not right for the project since it won't allow them to do what you feel they should for this IP. That isn't talking about the future of this project that is griping and is trying to direct the conversation into an Imagineering discussion about what you would do.

The project hasn't started construction yet and we have no information about it other than it's a boat ride and it's been compared to Pirates of the Caribbean. I'm talking about whether it will -- and saying it should -- include a restaurant like...The Blue Bayou. I didn't compare this project to Pirates of the Caribbean, Josh D'Amaro did. I didn't raise some idea out of thin air, with no grounding, no reason.

Josh D'Amaro literally said that this attraction will take inspiration from Pirates of the Caribbean. So the discussion of if it will -- and should -- have a restaurant, like Pirates of the Caribbean, seems like an absolutely reasonable topic of discussion. It's not a wild Imagineering idea. It's not any more wild than discussing whether they will -- or should -- build new restrooms as part of this project (what do you think?).

There is no grudge, as I don't hold grudges with forum members.

Citing a negative past exchange, months later, even though it's entirely unrelated in topic, as somehow related to our exchange today is the definition of holding a grudge. That's what a grudge is.

 

[Disney Irish]

Yes people on the forum talk about what Disney should do all the time. What they should do with annual passes or reservation policies or hours of operation or frequency of shows and live entertainment or types of attractions to be added or whether the cocktails should be premixed or not and on and on and on. Saying "the Coco attraction should include a restaurant" is not Imagineering.

And many of those posts get deleted when they are not on-topic, like I expect much of this exchange to be deleted.

The project hasn't started construction yet and we have no information about it other than it's a boat ride and it's been compared to Pirates of the Caribbean. I'm talking about whether it will -- and saying it should -- include a restaurant like...The Blue Bayou. I didn't compare this project to Pirates of the Caribbean, Josh D'Amaro did. I didn't raise some idea out of thin air, with no grounding, no reason.

Josh D'Amaro literally said that this attraction will take inspiration from Pirates of the Caribbean. So the discussion of if it will -- and should -- have a restaurant, like Pirates of the Caribbean, seems like an absolutely reasonable topic of discussion. It's not a wild Imagineering idea. It's not any more wild than discussion whether they will build new restrooms as part of this project (what do you think?).

And everyone responded to you that it most likely will not have a restaurant and included reasons. You've gone on about why it should include it and gave your reason including that this spot they picked out is wrong because of it not likely being included. Ok good, yes Disney should include it and yeah maybe that should have picked another location so that it was included, that has all been acknowledged. So I'm not sure what more you want, or even if there is anything further to talk about. Do you want to talk about the menu it should have? What decor it should include? What the views it'll have of the attraction? That is now talking about Imagineering stuff, don't know what to tell you.

Citing a negative past exchange, months later, even though it's entirely unrelated in topic, as somehow related to our exchange today is the definition of holding a grudge. That's what a grudge is.

No that is bringing up an example of a past action, you know like you're doing with Disney in this exchange. Its not holding a grudge that is just talking about history. Maybe that is how you hold grudges but not me. Again if I held a grudge I wouldn't be responding to you in the first place.

 

[DrStarlander]

So I'm not sure what more you want, or even if there is anything further to talk about. Do you want to talk about the menu it should have? What decor it should include? What the views it'll have of the attraction? That is now talking about Imagineering stuff, don't know what to tell you.

I'm not interested in talking about a menu or decor. That's a weird last-ditch attempt at baiting.

No that is bringing up an example of a past action, you know like you're doing with Disney in this exchange. It's not holding a grudge that is just talking about history. Maybe that is how you hold grudges but not me. Again if I held a grudge I wouldn't be responding to you in the first place.

Bringing up the Spider-Man Coaster exchange today -- completely out of context -- was eye-raising and without doubt, as far as I'm concerned, evidenced a grudge. I can't even believe that was summoned from your memory so readily.

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm not interested in talking about a menu or decor. That's a weird last-ditch attempt at baiting.

Ok, well then I don't know what more you want to talk about then. You've now said a few times that Disney should build a restaurant here with this project. Ok, that has been acknowledged, and even agreed upon for the most part even if most agree its not likely to happen. Unless you want to debate the reasons why Disney isn't going to build one (which is a whole other topic) then I don't know what more you want to discuss here. You got your point across.

Bringing up the Spider-Man Coaster exchange today -- completely out of context -- was eye-raising and without doubt, as far as I'm concerned, evidenced a grudge. I can't even believe that was summoned from your memory so readily.

I have a really great memory, almost photographic. As other posters can attest I can go from having a heated discussion in one thread with someone to agreeing with them in another thread the same very day. So again I don't hold grudges, especially with anonymous people on the internet. But believe whatever you want, I've said my peace. Have a good New Years.

 

[DLR92]

I think a lot of us expect Rapunzel, but hope for Frozen Tokyo instead.

I really hope Imagineers use Frozen Ever After with Coco. I would be happy with that.

Forgo the restaurant. There’s plenty of eateries at DCA.

 

[DrStarlander]

There’s plenty of eateries at DCA.

If the goal of adding 4 to 5 new attractions to DCA is to increase attendance, I would think additional F&B capacity would be part of the operational and pay-back plans.

 

[Disney Analyst]

I really hope Imagineers use Frozen Ever After with Coco. I would be happy with that.

Forgo the restaurant. There’s plenty of eateries at DCA.

Yeah. The use of small drops, lift hills, backwards, and forward sections, would honestly fit Coco so well.

Imagine you have an encounter with a huge Pepita, then go sailing backwards away from her due to her wings flapping towards your boat?

Magic.

 

[mickEblu]

Yeah. The use of small drops, lift hills, backwards, and forward sections, would honestly fit Coco so well.

Imagine you have an encounter with a huge Pepita, then go sailing backwards away from her due to her wings flapping towards your boat?

Magic.

This would be great. But if Ernesto De La Cruz isn’t in this attraction that’s a huge fail.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Slow progress begins:

 

[Disney Irish]

Slow progress begins:

 

[build_it]

Curiosity question - does Disney save plants, trees, shrubs, or do they generally just remove? Just curious.

 

[DLR92]

I hope they can repurpose those palm trees for the Coco attraction. Those palm trees aren’t cheap either.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Curiosity question - does Disney save plants, trees, shrubs, or do they generally just remove? Just curious.

I’m sure they save what they can, they must have greenhouses and storage they can use?

 

[Disney Irish]

Curiosity question - does Disney save plants, trees, shrubs, or do they generally just remove? Just curious.

Disney has a whole horticulture team, yes they save what can be reused elsewhere in the Resort.

 

[BrianLo]

I know the conversation has played out. But there’s a fine line between armchair imagineering canvassing and speculation.

I’ll happily speculate about an indoor restaurant. Pretty simply: No.

There’s no room and they’ll almost assuredly retheme boardwalk or paradise gardens, if they really want F&B for Coco. They don’t need more major F&B in that corner because of those aforementioned options.

It’s a good idea for delineating it in Florida as a better V2.0 Coco miniland; if it even comes to fruition there. Or in China.

As per the ride length, they promised an E, we’re worried about a C, but since they chose to summon an POTC and HM in their comparisons, I’ll be pleased if it’s a D. Aka about ~7.5 minutes instead of 5. Disney shouldn’t build C ticket boat rides, people inevitably leave disappointed and wish there was one more big scene (Rapunzel and Na’vi River Journey). The new Avatar Boat ride will be an E for sure.

 

[DLR92]

I’m speculating Coco show building would be close identical or tad smaller in size to the building that house the Primeval World Diorama.

 

[Disney Analyst]

I know the conversation has played out. But there’s a fine line between armchair imagineering canvassing and speculation.

I’ll happily speculate about an indoor restaurant. Pretty simply: No.

There’s no room and they’ll almost assuredly retheme boardwalk or paradise gardens, if they really want F&B for Coco. They don’t need more major F&B in that corner because of those aforementioned options.

It’s a good idea for delineating it in Florida as a better V2.0 Coco miniland; if it even comes to fruition there. Or in China.

As per the ride length, they promised an E, we’re worried about a C, but since they chose to summon an POTC and HM in their comparisons, I’ll be pleased if it’s a D. Aka about ~7.5 minutes instead of 5. Disney shouldn’t build C ticket boat rides, people inevitably leave disappointed and wish there was one more big scene (Rapunzel and Na’vi River Journey). The new Avatar Boat ride will be an E for sure.

Avatar will be a super E or E+ (the newer designation I give certain rides, lol)