Tokyo Disneyland Resort Expansion

[PiratesMansion]

True.

However how popular are the classics at TDL versus the stateside parks ???

Nobody has been able to answer that question yet on this thread.

I can only speak anecdotally here, but I wouldn't say Jungle Cruise was unpopular at TDL based on my experiences with the attraction; however, it takes up a huge chunk of land in a park where space is at a premium, and because of the way Adventureland is set up at TDL, if they want to do a major expansion within the land, they basically would need to either take out Pirates or Jungle Cruise. POTC does not seem to be particularly popular at TDL, especially in comparison to how popular the attraction is at other parks; however, eliminating JC offers a significant labor savings that eliminating Pirates would not, while also offering a larger, more flexible plot of land.

I do think there's inherently a popularity ceiling to something like the Treehouse in the modern era. Tiki Room is on its third iteration with Stitch, which is, by a slim margin, the longest running version of the show at TDL. In a park that very much needs more capacity in pretty much every area, the Tiki Room, Treehouse, and Railroad were very easy to experience with minimal waits, even as many other attractions were bursting at the seams and well over an hour in wait times. The other attractions I remember being at that level of popularity there? Star Jets and the car ride in Tomorrowland. There's definitely value in having attractions that can be experienced with minimal waits; however, I can also understand wanting to replace attractions that aren't pulling their weight with something that will do more to alleviate crowding elsewhere.

Finally, there's a desire for unique content on their end and a clear desire to pivot to something new, even if they might have gotten away with coasting. To replace Buzz Lightyear, one of their most popular attractions, definitely indicates that they're not afraid of making bold changes to re-envision what their parks could be.

 

[eddie104]

To replace Buzz Lightyear, one of their most popular attractions, definitely indicates that they're not afraid of making bold changes to re-envision what their parks could be.

Funny you mention this because this attraction was one a lot of people were convinced was going the way of the dodo due to the Tokyo project.

But instead it’s getting upgrades at the MK and is relatively safe at DL for the foreseeable future.

While I’m for the parks constantly evolving there is line they need to tow not upset their core fanbase too much.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Funny you mention this because this attraction was one a lot of people were convinced was going the way of the dodo due to the Tokyo project.

But instead it’s getting upgrades at the MK and is relatively safe at DL for the foreseeable future.

While I’m for the parks constantly evolving there is line they need to tow not upset their core fanbase too much.

While I'm glad that MK Buzz is getting (needed) upgrades, I don't have any great attachment to ANY version of Buzz, and even the Tokyo version was pretty chintzy outside of the gameplay. To me, no version of Buzz is sacred.

I wish I had a better sense of what the Japanese fans thought about these proposed changes, but TDL is not the original Disneyland and so I can't really get too upset if they decide to go off in their own direction. If I can make a generalization, if there's one resort out there where many locals really do just want their favorite IPs, Tokyo would be the one out there where you could potentially argue the change is organic and motivated by what the fans actually want. Their fanbase is large, passionate, and not necessarily motivated by the same things as fans in the US parks. And given that something like 5% of their entire visitorship is international, the OLC isn't going to be particularly concerned with what international Disney Park Purists think about what they're going to do.

And this could all change, at any rate; the last time OLC announced a big expansion, IASW was going to be entirely relocated, an Alice ride was going to be built, and TDS was to receive an entirely Frozen-themed port. What sounds good today might not actually happen in the long run. Losing Adventureland as we know it would be sad, but to be honest TDL's Adventureland was a bit odd in its setup and feel; it certainly feels old school but wasn't designed to the same level as the ones in the States or in Paris. Depending on my mood, I might honestly miss Aquatopia more (certainly more than Treehouse and the current iteration of their Tiki Room, at any rate).

 

[Timothy_Q]

Aquatopia is the only big loss here for me
The most unique and visually appealing flat ride Disney ever built imo

I'm sure the new indoor ride will be objectively better, but it's sad to lose so much visual kinetics
Especially when the park still has unused expansion pads elsewhere

 

[ThemeParkTraveller]

Aquatopia is the only big loss here for me
The most unique and visually appealing flat ride Disney ever built imo

I'm sure the new indoor ride will be objectively better, but it's sad to lose so much visual kinetics
Especially when the park still has unused expansion pads elsewhere

This still puzzles me. There is an expansion pad right behind Port Discovery, so why not expand the land in that direction? They could have built an even more ambitious ride/area while actually adding to the capacity of the park. Rides should not be removed unless absolutely necessary due to lack of space.

 

[CosmicDuck]

This still puzzles me. There is an expansion pad right behind Port Discovery, so why not expand the land in that direction? They could have built an even more ambitious ride/area while actually adding to the capacity of the park. Rides should not be removed unless absolutely necessary due to lack of space.

I agree, and Aquatopia adds such a nice element of kinetic energy to that area of the park, something both of the OLC parks could use more of and not less.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

Rides should not be removed unless absolutely necessary due to lack of space.

Absolutely! This is such a TDO thing to do, NOT OLC.

 

[Timothy_Q]

They're probably saving the Indy pad for a bigger project down the line, but probably also want to address the park inbalance in the short term and better spread the crowds out across the park and away from the Front Gate - FS path

TDS has become very uneven in ride distribution, with the south side of the park (River Delta, Port Discovery, Cape Cod, south side of American Waterfront) having way less big draws and no new E tickets since park open

 

[eddie104]

Absolutely! This is such a TDO thing to do, NOT OLC.

Well that’s about to change in a huge way isn’t it ?

 

[PiratesMansion]

Well that’s about to change in a huge way isn’t it ?

Thing is, it's not quite the same situation, even if it might look like it on first glance.

Tokyo Disneyland is basically out of expansion room in Adventureland. It would be difficult for Tokyo Disneyland to build new attractions with lower hourly throughput than Tiki Room and the Treehouse. OLC is also typically (frankly) smarter about spending their budgets on things that will actually address capacity needs. As one example, in addition to building its three attractions, TDS also opened huge counter service dining facilities in Fantasy Springs to help address the need for more dining capacity.

Meanwhile, WDW, which has all the room in the world and FAR FEWER hurdles to deal with than any other Disney park complex in the world, keeps reshuffling the deck chairs rather than meaningfully adding park capacity. There's no reason they had to replace Great Movie Ride with MMRR instead of having both coexist-it's frankly embarrassing that Disneyland, a resort with very real space limitations, managed to add the same ride without removing anything and the resort with the "blessing of size" somehow couldn't manage that. Similarly, WDW doesn't need to remove the river to add the other new MK lands, as they have more than enough land to keep what's there and also add the other areas. They didn't have to shutter the Muppets to build the door coaster; there's a whole other area of the park that already has basically nothing in it that they could have used instead. No one made them replace high capacity omnimover rides in Epcot's Future World with lower capacity experiences OR demo the front area of Epcot to produce...a result not all that different from what was there before. Magic Kingdom has shops and restaurants that are currently completely or often unused, even though they were used decades ago when park attendance was much lower than it is now. You don't see the OLC taking buildings that used to house entire attractions and using them to house queues of much lower capacity attractions. There's no reason each of the WDW second gates should still have around ten rides apiece even though the newest among them is rapidly approaching 30 years old.

So there's really a world of difference in approach between the two resorts even if from a glance what they're doing looks similar.

 

[eddie104]

Thing is, it's not quite the same situation, even if it might look like it on first glance.

Tokyo Disneyland is basically out of expansion room in Adventureland. It would be difficult for Tokyo Disneyland to build new attractions with lower hourly throughput than Tiki Room and the Treehouse. OLC is also typically (frankly) smarter about spending their budgets on things that will actually address capacity needs. As one example, in addition to building its three attractions, TDS also opened huge counter service dining facilities in Fantasy Springs to help address the need for more dining capacity.

Meanwhile, WDW, which has all the room in the world and FAR FEWER hurdles to deal with than any other Disney park complex in the world, keeps reshuffling the deck chairs rather than meaningfully adding park capacity. There's no reason they had to replace Great Movie Ride with MMRR instead of having both coexist-it's frankly embarrassing that Disneyland, a resort with very real space limitations, managed to add the same ride without removing anything and the resort with the "blessing of size" somehow couldn't manage that. Similarly, WDW doesn't need to remove the river to add the other new MK lands, as they have more than enough land to keep what's there and also add the other areas. They didn't have to shutter the Muppets to build the door coaster; there's a whole other area of the park that already has basically nothing in it that they could have used instead. No one made them replace high capacity omnimover rides in Epcot's Future World with lower capacity experiences OR demo the front area of Epcot to produce...a result not all that different from what was there before. Magic Kingdom has shops and restaurants that are currently completely or often unused, even though they were used decades ago when park attendance was much lower than it is now. You don't see the OLC taking buildings that used to house entire attractions and using them to house queues of much lower capacity attractions. There's no reason each of the WDW second gates should still have around ten rides apiece even though the newest among them is rapidly approaching 30 years old.

So there's really a world of difference in approach between the two resorts even if from a glance what they're doing looks similar.

I’m not gonna respond to all of this but I agree with some of your points but we all know the reason some of those Epcot Future World rides got replaced.

Because no cared about them after the 80s as they were built for that specific time period. Plus they lost sponsorship which was the model Disney was using at that time.

The Great Movie Ride should have stayed but I have no problem with its replacement in MMRR.

To your highlighted point WDW is located in a swamp so is not easy to expand at all.

The parks are not museums and things can be replaced and I swear half you guys are so scared of change on here it’s ridiculous.

The Muppets are being shuffled around and the door coaster is not replacing anything so I don’t get your point on that.

Also the river is being removed for future expansion.

This is not the WDW thread so I rather not continue this discussion on this matter.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

To your highlighted point WDW is located in a swamp so is not easy to expand at all.

If I may repeat myself:

WED Enterprises was able to build Walt Disney World in SWAMPLAND! IN THE 1960s!!!

I'm so sick of this "It's a swamp! We can't build in a swamp!" mullarkey.

 

[eddie104]

If I may repeat myself:

WED Enterprises was able to build Walt Disney World in SWAMPLAND! IN THE 1960s!!!

I'm so sick of this "It's a swamp! We can't build in a swamp!" mullarkey.

Well let’s ignore the environment around us and pave over crucial wetlands that provide habitat for Florida’s abundant wildlife. We are in a climate crisis the less carbon admissions the better.

It costs money to make the land suitable to build on in the first place.

Listen I’m completely in favor of them using any expansion space they have but let’s not act it’s easy as knocking down some trees.

 

[Agent H]

If I may repeat myself:

WED Enterprises was able to build Walt Disney World in SWAMPLAND! IN THE 1960s!!!

I'm so sick of this "It's a swamp! We can't build in a swamp!" mullarkey.

I love that scene. Jeff bridges is overacting in the best way possible.

 

[mysteriousislandlurker]

Another rehab for it's a small world approx 3 months after taking out the Groot overlay. Are they doing it again?
As a MCU-fan, I hope this is a good sign for things to come, more Marvel at Tokyo please!

 

[SweetDuffy101]

View attachment 857300
View attachment 857299
Another rehab for it's a small world approx 3 months after taking out the Groot overlay. Are they doing it again?
As a MCU-fan, I hope this is a good sign for things to come, more Marvel at Tokyo please!

Oh yeah we’ll see more presence for sure with its popularity on locals. All we wait and see if they start doing shows and Meet & Greets.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I’m not gonna respond to all of this but I agree with some of your points but we all know the reason some of those Epcot Future World rides got replaced.

Because no cared about them after the 80s as they were built for that specific time period. Plus they lost sponsorship which was the model Disney was using at that time.

Sponsorship model was part of it, but the problem was not necessarily the attractions themselves, it was that with Universal opening, attendance at Epcot dropped, and Disney had to do something but also didn't really want to spend a ton of money either, which resulted in the current situation where Future World has a weird mix of attractions that aren't that different from what they once were, things that were totally changed/butchered, or things that were straight up removed/ignored.

The Great Movie Ride should have stayed but I have no problem with its replacement in MMRR.

There's no good reason the park couldn't/shouldn't have both. The park's older than I am (not to mention some of the shows are in the same boat!) and still only has ten attractions. If any other non-Disney park had tried to keep its shows and attraction count the same for 30+ years, they'd almost certainly be out of business.

To your highlighted point WDW is located in a swamp so is not easy to expand at all.

So it was totally fine to expand into the 90s, but something happened other than corporate laziness to prevent them from doing the same afterwards?

The parks are not museums and things can be replaced and I swear half you guys are so scared of change on here it’s ridiculous.

No one's saying change shouldn't/can't happen. But change should be done intelligently. It should add capacity, it should top what was there before, what is added should fit the area/theme in which it resides, etc. Change just because is contrary to everything the Disney parks used to stand for, even if it'll sell more merch or pump the latest hot IP.

The Muppets are being shuffled around and the door coaster is not replacing anything so I don’t get your point on that.

MuppetVision and RNRC do not become the same attraction simply because they share the same intellectual property. The point is that net capacity is being lost for no reason because there's another area where the coaster could go and they would truly lose nothing, but no, we have to put it where Muppets is because reasons. It also helps wait times and guest satisfaction to have attractions that don't require LLs or a long wait to experience, not that WDW seems particularly concerned about this as they remove things like the Shooting Gallery and the riverboat and TSI for dubious reasons.

Also the river is being removed for future expansion.

But the point is they didn't need to remove the river for further expansion. It's to save themselves money, not because it's strictly necessary for them to do so.

Look, there are plenty of great things about WDW, but I don't think there's anything wrong with people pointing out that the complex that was indisputably given the best hand in terms of logistics, regulations, etc. continues to bungle that hand for no good reason at all.

 

[DLR92]

Well let’s ignore the environment around us and pave over crucial wetlands that provide habitat for Florida’s abundant wildlife. We are in a climate crisis the less carbon admissions the better.

It costs money to make the land suitable to build on in the first place.

Listen I’m completely in favor of them using any expansion space they have but let’s not act it’s easy as knocking down some trees.

WDW has so much land. It embarrassing it cannot expand without removing existing facilities occupying on developed land. It wasn’t a problem to drain the swamps when it was first conceived. Their so much urban sprawl around WDW. I am certainly sure their better areas where conservation is needed within WDW boundaries. Not around where the parks are developed.

 

[CosmicDuck]

Oh yeah we’ll see more presence for sure with its popularity on locals. All we wait and see if they start doing shows and Meet & Greets.

We'll be there in August and were just there in December. I was very sad to see how short the Groot overlay window was because we'll have just missed it both ways. Was hoping the popularity would mean they would extend the window though I know they're pretty strict when it comes to dates.

 

[infloencer]

WDW has so much land. It embarrassing it cannot expand without removing existing facilities occupying on developed land. It wasn’t a problem to drain the swamps when it was first conceived. Their so much urban sprawl around WDW. I am certainly sure their better areas where conservation is needed within WDW boundaries. Not around where the parks are developed.

Maybe let’s take the WDW discussion to the WDW forum and leave this one for the Tokyo news and discussions???